DOJ-OGR-00001722.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 41 Filed 08/13/20 Page 4 of5 Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 13, 2020 Page 4 any such issues as the discovery process continues. To date, the defendant has yet to ask the Government a single substantive question about the discovery. The Government is also prepared to engage in good faith discussions with the defense about an appropriate schedule for disclosure of 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, all of which the Government expects to produce reasonably in advance of the trial date in July 2021 to permit the defense to investigate witnesses. But particularly given the nature of the charges, the Government’s strong desire to protect the privacy of the alleged victims, and the lack of any legal precedent for the defendant’s request, the Government respectfully submits that at the present time—eleven months prior to trial, nearly three months prior to the discovery deadline, and more than four months prior to the pretrial motions deadline—there is no basis for the defendant to demand the Government disclose the identity of its witnesses. B. The Defendant’s Request that the Court Dictate the Conditions of Her Confinement The defendant’s requests with respect to the conditions of her confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) are similarly premature and unavailing, and her request that the Court dictate the terms of her confinement to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”’) should also be denied.4 As an initial matter, the defendant’s argument that she is being treated “worse” than other inmates is incorrect. There is no merit to her complaints about being monitored by staff, as it is entirely appropriate for BOP to carefully monitor any inmate, particularly a new inmate who has never before been incarcerated and who faces the strong likelihood of serving many years in prison. Additionally, like all inmates, the defendant may be subject to observation or searches of her person or space as appropriate.” It is otherwise entirely unclear what specific “privileges given to other pretrial detainees” the defendant believes she is being denied. More generally, the defendant, like all pretrial inmates, is subject to an individualized assessment by the BOP with respect to his or her placement in a facility. Here, for reasons including safety, security, and the orderly functioning of the facility, BOP has made the determination that, at present, the defendant should not be fully integrated into the dorm-style accommodations of the general population. The Government understands from BOP that it will 4 Once again, defense counsel has rushed to seek Court intervention on issues they have made little or no meaningful effort to address with the Government or, in this case, the BOP. The Government learned of the defendant’s specific objections to her conditions of incarceration for the first time from the Defense Letter, and has since conferred with BOP to understand and to address the issues as appropriate. Moreover, as noted below, the defendant filed the instant challenge to the BOP’s plan to permit her time to review discovery before the BOP had a chance to implement (and ultimately modify) that plan. > Defense counsel claims that prison staff “constantly observe” the defendant “including her phone conversations with defense counsel.” This is misleading. As with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff. Among other reasons, this is so MDC staff can ensure that inmates do not complete calls with their counsel and then call other individuals on a non-recorded line. DOJ-OGR-00001722