Watkins case. There is a detention hearing going on now for this Jan 6 case.

Judge Mehta is presiding. He is a full judge, not a magistrate. Watkins is currently detained.
Judge Mehta has expressed that he's not impressed w/the govt argument Watkins is a flight risk, given that she turned herself in. So he wants to know what the govt's theory is for the detention based on a "crime of violence" theory. Not just for this case he says, but generally.
The detention statute requires a hearing on the govt motion if they assert the charge is one that is a "crime of violence." This can be a very technical area of the law. It matters for whether there is a presumption of detention beyond the usual factors that apply.
Judge Mehta is making the point that what she's charged with is an offense that can involve the "deprivation" of property rather than "destruction" which might by definition include violence.
This statute & argument is very technical - some offenses clearly lead to the presumption of detention (which can be overcome by the defense) & some are ambiguous & the courts have had to rule on each one as to whether it leads to the presumption or not.
There's no case directly on point for this charge. Judge Mehta is asking what other judges in our courthouse have said about this. Govt lawyer is saying not in our courthouse but there is one case in North Dakota; Judge has seen that one; only one he could find that was close.
This judge is very measured and deliberate. In general he is a very thoughtful jurist. In terms of demeanor, he is also the kind of judge who lets the lawyers develop their case and arguments; he doesn't cut people off; it's a conversation.
The Public Defender is agreeing with the judge that this is a technical argument that they need to resolve before they can properly conduct the hearing with the right presumption or not; she also does not know of any other judges or cases that have resolved this specific issue.
She asks for a couple days to further research it and to consult with their appellate specialists.
The Judge is agreeing they need more briefing. He wants a definitive position from the Govt.
He's saying this is not really a "one-off" case; the analysis may well affect other cases involved in the Jan 6 riot. He therefore doesn't want to just proceed without a clear legal analysis.
He's mentioning how the magistrate judges dealing with these cases have struggled with the issue also.
He's explaining to Watkins that this "threshold" legal issue really needs to be resolved correctly before they can proceed. She wants to talk to her attorney about it. The judge says yes that's something they can do.
In a non-covid time, the court in this circumstance would take a break to let the lawyer explain what's going on to the client since it's an issue the parties weren't prepared for & it means there won't be a decision today about her detention (which she was expecting, of course.)
So, there's just silence now because the PD is in a "break-out" with Watkins to explain what's going on.
So they are back. Watkins knows what's going on now. It can be hard for clients to process what the lawyers and judge are saying, sometimes just because of the stress.
They are trying to get a briefing schedule together fast for this; judge suggests Thursday; PD wants to file - both parties - on Thursday and then respond to one another's briefs.
Govt saying he thinks they can do it, but it sometimes takes time to get approvals up the chain. This is annoying, but normal.
Judge is trying to set a hearing for Friday morning; talking to clerk; Clerk says afternoon is more available. (This is an issue of the technology.)
Judge says 2 on Friday; wants pleadings by 5 on Thursday so he can read them that night.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

23 Feb
Watkins Case. For those who are interested, the section of law that Judge Mehta wants the Govt to pin down a position on is in the detention statute: 18 USC 3142(f)(1)(A)

(f) Detention Hearing.—The judicial officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of conditions set forth in . . . this section will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required & the safety of any other person & the community—

(1) upon motion of the attorney for the Government, in a case that involves—
(A) a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, or an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed;

Read 4 tweets
15 Feb
The female equivalent song to me is this one, which I also love.

via @YouTube
Baby. Baby yeah
Are you listening?
Wondering where you’ve been all my life
I just started living
Oh, Baby, are you listening?
When you say you love me
No, I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
Boy, I adore you
I adore you
Baby can you hear me
When I'm crying out for you
I'm scared oh
So scared
But when you're near me
I feel like I'm standing with an army of men
Armed with weapon
When you say you love me
No I love you more
And when you say you need me
No, I need you more
Boy I adore you
I adore you
Read 4 tweets
15 Feb
Valentine’s Day vibe.

via @YouTube
This song is so beautiful to me. Lyrics:

Whenever I'm weary
From the battles that raged in my head
You made sense of madness
When my sanity hangs by a thread
I lose my way, but still you
Seem to understand
Now & Forever,
I will be your man

Sometimes I just hold you
Too caught up in me to see
I'm holding a fortune
That Heaven has given to me
I'll try to show you
Each and every way I can
Now & Forever,
I will be your man

Read 4 tweets
11 Feb
So Gina Carano’s Instagram post was not “abhorrent & unacceptable.” See for yourself - she’s saying normalizing the vilification of others is a totalitarian tactic. She’s right about that.
It seems she may have originally been targeted by libs for poking fun at pronouns.👇🏻& she voiced some views (in Nov) about election integrity that are far from crazy. None of this justifies Disney+ cancelling her. This is instead - free speech. In America we tolerate free speech.
So, if we’re serious about free speech & we’re serious about liberty & we’re serious about “we need to do something,” here’s what you do: you stop buying & consuming anything Disney until they repudiate this. And you tell them so. Civilly write & tweet them that you’re doing so.
Read 4 tweets
10 Feb
An idea: You know what would be good? If the govt would be honest with people for a damn change. In my experience most people will accept restrictions & sacrifices for the greater good if they’re necessary & effective. But you have to explain them in order to get buy in. /1
The govt is not doing this about the covid vaccine. People think that once you’re vaccinated, how can you spread the disease? Isn’t that the point of vaccination- so you’re immune? So how does it make any sense to wear a mask after being vaccinated? /2
The thing is the govt isn’t explaining the situation so it makes sense. They aren’t explaining that some vaccines completely clear you of the disease - & therefore you can’t pass it on, which is called sterilizing immunity. The smallpox vaccine does this so we’ve eradicated it./3
Read 6 tweets
10 Feb
This opening argument has several problems. The first is that it’s what lawyers call an ipso facto argument. “My point is proved by me saying it is.” “He’s guilty because he’s guilty.” The speaker assumes you already agree. That’s not persuasive & it’s logically flawed. /1
A second problem is that it’s claiming neutral facts are nefarious. Pointing out that Trump invited & encouraged people to come to DC on Jan 6 doesn’t move the needle on whether he incited them to insurrection. He’s arguing that fact like it’s damning; it isn’t. /2
When you argue every single fact as if it’s totally damning & the worst thing ever, you loose persuasive force. All facts don’t have equal weight. Certainly they don’t all carry the most weight. An unbalanced, non-nuanced presentation doesn’t persuade. /3
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!