afternoon that they had uploaded discovery onto a government lab and provided it will be speaking with mr zucker later today to see how that's going to hear five remains necessary cop has been in custody for a few years which is a trial where there's an attempt to start the trial on november rd as it's currently scheduled or whether it starts some other time given the circumstances we really don't difficulty finding argument to the contrary but that's not where we are i've been in contact with the federal defender i've been in contact with coordinate this to be in touch with pretrial services to get him electronically monitored to get him to a quarantine site and you get end to i was mostly a shelter this happens under unusual circumstances which  is so under normal circumstances i would agree and we did not make this application earlier or making it now because of the circumstances presented by that and emma deficiency of me i thought you were making this application in large part because of essentially fair trial concerns that made this an extraordinary circumstance right that it was the inability to review discovery that was the  problem i don't minimize that that may still remain a problem even as is billable but i thought that was the the driving factor here is this different then quite a number of cases that we've where there were extensive delays in getting to trial and i'm not sure that i mean two years is certainly long but i don't think it's the longest we've had and i understand also there's the virus concern but that too is something that we've dealt with in quite a number of situations so what is so extraordinary about this now that we have at least in part resolved the discovery problem there and there are a number of reasons why this is different and one of them is the is the time that we have even if the realistic in january we need to be in a room with and at some point and under the circumstances there's not enough time and with regard to your honor's went about the length of time it's two years i agree but there's more to this more to  trial just a length of time that someone is or awaiting trial is the time that it's taken to get to where we apparently are on friday with the laptop i ways this issue in january of judge korman before that and  i was told the only way to do this was if somebody physically went to the m d c i no one told me that a law it was possible i raised this again in the spring in august i asked for a laptop i expressly said i'm  says ever happened that someone's been provided a laptop at the m d c no one corrected me when i went to the judge and applied for a laptop in september the government opposed it they said idiosyncras are on october th and we have a trial that's either going to come up on november rd or shortly thereafter and the circumstances prevent what we might have been able to do it today with the beginning of the case claim yet or do i wish to government they may be in a better position to know i don't know i don't know the answer to that question with certainty judge cooler i don't believe so what i said in my initial filing was that i believe this is an issue of st impression that raises an unusual mix of circumstances not just the passage of time not just the pandemic but the nature of the discovery and that all this time has gone on without  b related issues just chan in the eastern district i cited some cases in my reply papers including occasional and so bang you know where the judge pointed out that it's simply inconsistent with the expect expecting defense lawyer and client to sit in plea agreement or something confined we need to spend a half hour this is multiple hours day after day after day and a poorly ventilated and i space and  courtroom has been totally refitted the jurors will be sitting in the audience not of the jury box and the jury box will be used by witnesses who will in turn your pie eating series of spaces so that no witness sits in the same can't be effectively done at this time i also think that as laid out even in the defendant's d reply brief there's nothing about it says that i think the public defender will is scorch the defendant out of the courthouse but it doesn't say where he will be escorted d for russia and bulgaria is a fluent english speaker is a frequent traveler and as i said the application that was brought before the district court which this court is to reviewing for clear error doesn't drip chain any space effects of how the defend connecting this defendant and his discovery the court indicated this d is last wednesday that it intended to order bureau of prisons to give the defendant access to a laptop and directed defense counsel to get that laptop a seems possible when we became laptop was possible or that i could ask for and in august expressly said that in a submission i'm unaware this is ever been done and in fact it was denied this all didn't happen until last wednesday and friday there's an attack on me as it continues for not doing this for not doing the math that we weren't on a path off the laptop we were sending it to c j people to be disabled i don't think there's anything wrong under the circumstances to be concerned about being as this judge in pennsylvania was and i think we all are right as you call today for a reason for having people who live with people who have a new deficiencies as a required trial aren't you or anyone else or myself i'm in my mid sixty's to be concerned about the virus and to be concerned about being in a confined space for significant periods of time this is a real problem i don't share the government's optimism about this trial certainly for due process and right to counsel  might turn into a speedy trial violation presumably you mean a constitutional speedy trial because somehow this is all the government's fault d or will it turned out to have been the government's fault at some future point when the trial emerges so i'm having trouble understanding what we can or should do we're here to review the decisions of the district court you've already said that the district centrally implicitly at least this to court was correct to have mr zucker detained at the beginning and now we're talking about was the district court correct to have continued that detention  when precisely in late september early october but now really we're talking about when at some future point this might turn into a speedy trial violation or what now is or is not possible and appropriate with the assistance of the federal defenders in ways that the district court has never contemplated or been told about so having trouble understanding what we can do here your honor this is an extremely difficult situation mostly for mr zucker it's a very fluid situation there are things happening that are changing the landscape literally every day some that mitigate the circumstances some dick don't i have a trial zucker extradited here is a foreign national who has been in custody for two years and there was a solution to this in january or the spring or august and the government knew about that solution and didn't and you can tell us i understand judgments but that's to somehow blame you or other defense counsel given the difficulties of these circumstances but it's also not clear to me that we are in a position to make a fact finding about what actually happened in january to the extent that that fact finding requires determining whether the government was somehow at fault any more than whether you are somehow at fault were told by mr mendelian that at that time the government was the government meaning the u s attorney's office was no more aware than you were told of more than one case we're told that the prisons has taken a consistent position that it doesn't like to do this we're told by the government that you didn't actually make a specific application for the laptop relief until the summer you know who's who if anyone is to blame so i agree that there is a record on the speedy trial that needs to be developed and that's why there's a motion to dismiss pending and and district court and perhaps will be here and another setting we have a client right now who is just beginning now to review discovery there's for is for him to be released and you're asking for him to be released essentially on his own recognizance when he has no fixed abode in the city when the capacity for electronic monitoring as far as i can see would be zero if he goes to a shelter where there isn't that's what cation of sorts for him to be put in a hotel at government expense with what kind of security i'm not aware other than some prospect perhaps of electronic monitoring and the district court made a fact finding that this was insufficient to keep a person who has no contact with the united states  from from fleeing and i understand his passport is in the custody of someone other than themselves but i take it not in the custody of the government i'm right about my understanding is that it's expired and it's in the custody of the russian government correct check with resume into the phone these obstacles are dealt with in other cases we applied to the court some time ago to have just asked as a committee to recommend to the state department that they allow that at the state department allowed his wife to have a visa to be here and participating in securing his attendance judge judge committee declined to do that i mean we can certainly go back to judge committee and raise some of these