As Huawei Trial
Courtroom Closing Opposed by Inner City Press
Now 72 Rule But Still No Oct 2
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
EDNY
COURTHOUSE,
Oct 20 –
With the USA v. Huawei trial now underway in
Federal court in Brooklyn, presiding Judge Ann
Donnelly on September 8 instructed prospective
jurors: "China and the Communist Party … are
not on trial."
The same was said, or
claimed, in the Southern District of New York
in the UN corruption trials of CCP-member Ng
Lap Seng, and CCP-NGO boss Patrick Ho of the
China Energy Fund Committee. Both were
convicted. But is Huawei different?
On September 9 Inner City Press
put out a 20 tweet thread of the opening
arguments, on X
and Bluesky.
September 9 extra on X for
subscribers here
and Substack here
On September 16-17 Inner
City Press published a book, Huawei on Trial
in Brooklyn, Surveillance from Iran to the UN,
here.
It contains information on how Huawei enables
surveillance by many UN states / the UN. In
the White House on September 18 there was talk
now minimizing spying.
On the afternoon of September
18, this: "on the government's motion to close
the courtroom for three witnesses's
testimony."
Inner City Press that
night emailed opposition to the closure, along
with a request that DOJ's motions for the
closure be unsealed, now docketed here.
Jump cut to October 19, when
Inner City Press went and spoke at the podium
against courtroom closure, noting that not a
single page of transcript of October 2's
closing had been provided.
After receiving the parties'
responses (themselves sealed), on October 20
this: "After the public hearing held on
October 19, 2026, the government, at the
Court's direction, filed supplemental briefing
in support of its motion to close the
courtroom for an additional witness's
testimony. The government's motion and all
supporting and opposing briefing have been
filed under seal. (See ECF Nos. 898, 904, 906,
911, 913.) The Court grants the government's
motion. The closure of the courtroom will be
tailored by providing access to redacted
transcripts as soon as possible after the
witness's testimony. Specifically, the
government will provide proposed redactions to
the defendants within 72 hours after the
witness testifies, at which point the
defendants may offer objections that the Court
will promptly resolve. Opinion setting forth
the Court's reasoning in detail to follow.
Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on
10/20/2026."
So, 72 hours then another
72 hours for the defense? Meanwhile, nothing
from October 2. Nothing.
More/update on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
