United States v. Ruth

515 F.Supp.3d 14

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Jaron RUTH, Defendant.

1:18-CR-00004 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed January 28, 2021

Joseph M. Tripi, Michael Paul Felicetta, United States Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is the motion of defendant Jaron Ruth ("Ruth") to authorize counsel to provide the hearing transcripts to Ruth, who is currently incarcerated. (Dkt. 188). For the following reasons, Ruth's motion is granted with the following conditions: (1) Ruth may not copy, transcribe, or otherwise repurpose the transcripts, except for the purpose of engaging in communications with his counsel; (2) Ruth may not disseminate the materials either within the jail or to individuals outside; and (3) the government may request limited redactions to personal identifying information set forth in the transcripts of the testimony of civilian witnesses (e.g. , where the witness lives or works) on or before February 3, 2021, and the copies of the transcripts supplied to Ruth shall have that information redacted. With respect to the last condition, if Ruth objects to any proposed redactions, he may seek relief from the Court on or before February 8, 2021.¹

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2019, Ruth pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 4 of the Indictment, charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and distribute, 28 grams or more of cocaine base, a quantity of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 4). (Dkt. 56; Dkt. 57). Thereafter, the Court held a sentencing hearing, which took place on August 17, 2020 through 21, 2020, continued on August 24, 2020, and concluded on September 17, 2020. (Dkt. 150; Dkt. 151; Dkt. 152; Dkt. 153; Dkt. 154; Dkt. 156; Dkt. 167). The purpose of the hearing was for the Court to receive evidence relating to the applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1), cross-referencing U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, for Ruth's alleged role in the murder of Henry Ackley in September 2012. (See Dkt. 56 at ¶ 4(e)).

In addition to videotaped statements of Amber Crouse, the government presented testimony from seven witnesses at the hearing, six of whom were civilian witnesses whose identity was protected from public disclosure in advance of the hearing pursuant to the terms of a Protective Order. (See Dkt. 117). Transcripts of the testimony have been prepared and filed on the docket, and those transcripts are currently available at the public terminal in the courthouse or through purchase from the court reporters, with the release of transcript restrictions set for next month. (See Dkt. 176; Dkt. 177; Dkt. 178; Dkt. 179; Dkt. 180). The initial post-hearing briefing is currently due March 19, 2021, with responsive briefs scheduled for filing on April 16, 2021, and oral argument scheduled for May 20, 2021. (Dkt. 191).

To assist with the preparation of the post-hearing briefing and out of an abundance of caution, defense counsel has filed a motion seeking permission to share the transcripts with Ruth, who is currently in United States Marshals custody at a local jail facility. (Dkt. 188). As noted in the motion, the Protective Order in this case does not address the publicly-filed hearing transcripts, and in any event, due to COVID-19 restrictions and the fact that the local jail facility is closed to visitors, there is no "meaningful alternative to allowing Mr. Ruth to have copies of the transcripts at the [jail]." (Id. at ¶ 9).

The government opposes the motion, arguing that while it does not generally object to Ruth having access to the transcripts, it requests that "the transcripts be provided to the defendant under the following Court directives: (a) the defendant may only review them in a secure setting within the facility; (b) the defendant cannot copy, transcribe or otherwise repurpose the transcripts; and (c) the defendant cannot disseminate the materials either within the jail or to individuals outside." (Dkt. 192 at 2). In support of its opposition, the government attaches an indictment in another case wherein Ruth is not named as a defendant, but contends that he is "a known member of the Bailey Boys street gang" which is the subject of that indictment and "has historically been involved in drug trafficking, murder, and related criminal offenses." (Id. ). The government continues that Ruth "has demonstrated that he is volatile and willing to resort to extreme violence when upset or angry, and is believed to be associated with other violent actors with an ability to operate outside of the jail." (Id. ). The government does not dispute the contention in Ruth's initial motion papers that "[t]here have been no improper contact issues in the case," and there have not been "any issues regarding compliance with the Protective Order[s]" in the case. (Dkt. 188 at ¶¶ 6-7).

Ruth has filed a reply in further support of his motion, noting that he has no objection to the request that the transcripts not be disseminated, nor does he object to the request that the transcripts not be copied provided that Ruth "may make his own notes for his counsel and correspondence to counsel regarding the hearing and strategy." (Dkt. 193 at ¶¶ 4-5). However, Ruth does object to the requirement that he may only view the transcripts in a so-called secure setting, noting among other things that the government opposed such a condition as unworkable when prior to the hearing, the parties litigated the ability of Ruth to view information that was subject to the Protective Order. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-13; see Dkt. 114).

ANALYSIS

As the Court previously recognized with respect to information produced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500, reasonable restrictions on Ruth's access to these materials in a jail setting were appropriate...