Thread by @McAdooGordon

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.