the next case on the calendar is united states  appeal is based on clearer because among other things the district court after determining that change in circumstances did not help reconsideration of kelly's bond conditions failed to consider that mr kelly must prepare impact of the coppa nineteen and damage going to last the ny order of made other than writing that mr kelly would have an adequate opportunity to prepare for his upcoming trial which at this point  difficult even if he has really an impossible if he is not released given the current climate additionally mr kelly has been the subject of an unprovoked attack while incarcerated  not being able to meet with counsel and prepare his limited ability to read and write violates guaranteed right to a fair trial the right to counsel and the to have any substantive conversation under the current the current restraints that are in place at the spot any isn't why isn't the solution here not to grant thing but to  determined that they are a flight risk or dangerous to the public and they have been afforded the right to be released to prepare for trial united states or seven now that the court set up a very specific charges and factors about your client came to a determination that he would be a risk of flight and a danger to the community and this is a presumption kings and all those are factors that make your arguments more  difficult in fact the original detention order was not appealed but now you're arguing i think there are two things and correct me if i'm misunderstanding you're both saying that there's a compelling reason for him to be released now because of the need to prepare for trial and that the court got it wrong on that original tension word or do you want to address the the nd of those what was wrong with the actual determination of the judge that this was an appropriate detention  that you know mr kelly has had prior proceeding to use the easy is always appeared in court the court did not when the fact that mr kelly has been very cooperative attendant as a matter of fact when he evidence presented there was no record of evidence that demonstrated that that that that demonstrate that he was likely to commit that structuring wrong again the record is based upon speculation and the underlying the initial decision didn't consider that there are in fact conditions that can be even even if we can see the construction argue the obstruction argument there are underlying conditions that can be put in place racketeering enterprise engagement racketeering activity spanning two decades involving bribery kidnapping sexual assault sexual exploitation of minors coursing and transporting girls and women to engage in illegal sexual activity and forced labor was with multiple men act violations charges as chief judge livingston pointed out the grand jury's finding a probable cause that kelly committed multiple offenses involving minor victims subject kelly to presumption that no condition or combination of condition will reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community now the district court properly found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption i'm not the determination is strongly supported by the record it's not mere speculation for example the judge walker pointed out that there is a history of obstruction the grand jury in the northern district of the annoying found probable cause that kelly engaged in a long running conspiracy to obstruct justice in his two thousand and eight trial where he secured witnesses silent and suborn perjury bribes blackmail threats and intimidation in addition based on the two pending federal indictments there's also probable cause that kelly committed at least five serious crimes while on bail awaiting his two thousand each trial mainly kidnapping and man exile ations allege intimidating and threatening potential witnesses against him including the potential witnesses the victims related to charges to district of new york and as a district court found kelly poses a risk of flight risk given the serious charges he fa in multiple district meester district argument that there is a compelling reason for relief here because it's really impossible to prepare for this trial given the circumstances of his incarceration and solenoi accommodations for the purposes of preparing for trial and i believe judge walker pointed out that really is a trial management issue for for the just record the b o p s limitations on attorney visited attorneys if a patient is reasonable given the the coronavirus pandemic and given the fact that mr kelly still has access to his attorneys via telephone calls which if schedule can be was arrested the defendant was arrested initially on an arrest warrant issued in the eastern district of new york and then subsequently an arrest warrant issued in the northern district of illinois almost simultaneously she was arrested in chicago illinois so he was housed at the m c c chicago for at least one appearance the defendant has been transferred to the n p c in new york but in terms of consistency it's been determined that he be ho see chicago now while when the trials have been scheduled the eastern district of new york trial the most recent scheduling with set to occur before the northern district of illinois trial the original trial but scheduled in the northern district of illinois that had they had the st date since that time because the various logistical issues there have been adjourned then and currently there is no no trial date however it's likely that a trial date will be scheduled it appropriately in the future at the next status conference but  he might stay in chicago for a period and go through that entire proceeding before the trial and in brooklyn that's correct or if trial proceeds st in the eastern district of new york the defendant would  detained in illinois what are the conditions on that that at detention facility you can read in person with your client arrangement that's correct defense counsel can meet in person with their client if they ar injured with the bureau of prisons and the local facility will be done on a case by case basis but based on discussions with the facility it is my understanding that the b o p is doing everything that they possibly can in order to accommodate those requests and again i would point out your honor that given the fact that no trial is currently scheduled and the fact that the defendant currently has access albeit more limited access that there has been no by a leash and either of his th amendment right to access to counsel or any compelling reason at this time your honor for the purposes of releasing him even temporarily given to preach the previous finding by the district court the post is both a danger to the community and a risk of flight judge jacob why the band that he's been think it said misstatements by defense counsel thirty one dollars if you had what if he had explained jail for a year i mean it's all very well to say well when the trial is scheduled it would be a trial scheduling matter see whether he can see  march prior to that time to the extent counsel wanted to discuss discovery and me in person with his client he was more than free to do so and in fact he counsel for kelly has done so out with regard to the question of whether or not there is a concern that there is no trial currently in place i think the district court has made very clear that we're moving forward and add that things returned to normal the district court is very much so looking to put a trial on the calendar in fact defense counsel has suggested november for the trial and while the district court was not able to cause a scheduling issue to schedule it for november and all the parties are in discussions as to how quickly they're after the trial would be able to happen and i would note to your honor the fact that with respect to adjournment the defendant has not  objected to adjournment with regard to the speedy trial act in that there in the interest of justice in that regard with regard to the charges as i believe judge walker pointed out in chief judge livingston the charges are serious in this case it's not unusual formidable truly that's an argument in favor of incarceration arrangements which can consult with his counsel of prepare for his defense sa your team to prepare the property that's correct your honor and i don't think it's anyone's position that the defendant isn't entitled to prepare for trial i think the the question is whether or not in judge in the district court may th order whether or not the court erred in finding that at that time the main when the trial was scheduled for september that that was not a compelling basis for the purpose of releasing the defendant even temporarily given the risk that he posed to the community and the risk of flight that people when you say even temporarily do you m and forty two i is often in vision for the purpose of as you mentioned a few hours in courtroom or multiple days in a row in order to be able to go to documents however the way the defense counsel requested temporary release in this case was essentially bail in the defendant's apartment under certain conditions like electronic monitoring and and or curfew and that the district court found reasonably those types of conditions were completely and utterly that those type of conditions would not properly secure the defendant given his history of interfering with witnesses and victims and that even if the thank you your honor so let's st deal with the issue that the withdrawal take place with kelly's trial has already we've already rescheduled jury selection twice the northern district illinois case has multiple defendants who have all have already been who are who have been released on bond and so it's likely that that that trial is a little bit further out promotion practice in other other  court hearing with applications now with regard to trial and states versus pleadings which was decided during the time has quickly that the defendant meets the burden by demonstrating at least one compelling protected in advance of the trial i can handle it and let that way that seems to be a logical way to do it rather than just you know granting him bail which would be extraordinary per person of this sort it why not just be able to manage it that way use and the district judge is going to accommodate it because he doesn't want to motion that th amendment moshing argument made on appeal but he's there he's an odd person the opportunity to prepare what you are one thank you very much thank you for the question the reality is is that for almost more than half the time he's been incarcerated he's not been able to meet with defendants who have already been convicted in the southern district of new york who are granted bail and they are being housed in very very they're being housed in very limited restriction where they have where where the government is able  to monitor as well as the bureau of prisons are able to monitor the defendant and it's not a circumstance that that's an unusual while the pandemic as it is is ongoing and the courts ruled that that release is not has no bearing on any other bail applications that may have that may result in detention the fact remains that mr kelly moves to prepare for trial in person face to face with his release for ninety days to prepare for trial and the court continues to extend the rule the release date for mr abu nadi and the fact that he is facing a trial in california and yet another trial in the southern district of new york and he is out because of who he is and so the fact remains that the same the same result can happen it just doesn't have to happen within the bureau given the compelling circumstances of this pandemic i think it's  monitored released on bail in order to prepare for trial but the government's response to that is recent evidence obstructive behavior smuggling the island like while he's in the detention facility and why individual actors and what they did they did there's no evidence that that that cooperates the government's assertions their blanket assertion and effort to try to tip the balance to ensure that mr kelly stays exactly where he is  f in fact mr kelly was actively involved with these three act then then it would be clear that mr kelly would be facing additional charges there is no evidence to support the allegations in the government