Opinion ID: 2515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and Dismissal of Lewis's Action

Text: Before trial, Lewis was incarcerated at the New York State Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York (Auburn), approximately 150 miles from the federal courthouse in Albany. See generally Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 344, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952) (recognizing court's authority to take judicial notice of geography). Lewis asserts that on the morning of June 21, 2005, he was transported from Auburn to Albany and placed in a holding cell at the federal courthouse. There, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Chen advised Lewis that during the course of the federal trial he would be held at Great Meadow, the facility where the alleged assaults had occurred and where certain of the defendants were still employed. Great Meadow, located in Comstock, New York, is approximately 70 miles from Albany. The morning's court proceedings commenced on the record at 10:30 a.m. in Judge Kahn's chambers. [4] The trial transcript reveals that Judge Kahn, plaintiff's counsel Chen, and defense counsel  Stephen Schwartz of the New York Attorney General's Office  there discussed the fact that Lewis would be shackled during trial, an action apparently deemed necessary in light of the violent nature of both Lewis's crimes of conviction and his disciplinary record in prison. Indeed, it was Lewis's own counsel who proposed that his client's feet and non-dominant hand be shackled during trial, leaving his dominant hand free for taking and passing notes. With this resolved, Judge Kahn inquired of counsel: Is there anything else before we bring up the jury and the [plaintiff]? Trial Tr. at 4. The attorneys proceeded to discuss various factual stipulations and the number of witnesses they would call, with Chen indicating that Lewis would be the only witness in support of the plaintiff's case. Chen requested  and the court agreed  that Lewis would sit in on jury selection. At no time, however, did Chen raise the issue of Lewis's incarceration during trial at Great Meadow, nor was the subject broached by defense counsel or Judge Khan. Indeed, neither the trial transcript nor the clerk's detailed notes indicate that a discussion of this subject took place prior to jury selection. Jury selection commenced at 10:45 a.m. and concluded at 11:37 a.m., whereupon the jury was sworn and given preliminary instructions by Judge Khan. The court then declared a five-minute break before opening statements. Id. at 12. The transcript of the colloquy that ensued when the break concluded at 11:48 a.m. suggests that it was during that interval that the issue of plaintiff's incarceration during trial at Great Meadow first arose: [5] THE COURT: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chen, but Mr. Lewis is concerned about testifying particularly against the defendants who are now assigned to the Great Meadow Correctional Facility? MR. CHEN: That's correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And as I understand it, he states that he won't so testify unless he's transferred to another facility. I told him that I personally have no power over transferring. As I understand it, I don't think that's within my power to do that. And what's your position on that Mr. Schwartz? MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't understand, Judge, because, yes, Mr. Lewis is currently housed at Auburn Correctional Facility. Correct? MR. CHEN: That is correct. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's another facility. So he's concerned about  MR. CHEN: He will be housed at Great Meadow temporarily. THE COURT: During this trial. MR. CHEN: During the course of this trial. And since this is where the incident took place, and he's also concerned about the fact that other defendants are currently employed there, that that concerns him. MR. SCHWARTZ: This is the first I heard of the fact that he was going to be housed there. I don't know that I have any authority  I know I don't have any authority to determine where an inmate is being housed during the course of the trial. I can discuss the matter with the officers and  THE COURT: Do you want to do that over the next few minutes? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: And then let me know your position. And then we'll act accordingly. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Id. at 13-14. Following this break, Judge Khan noted on the record what counsel had reported to the court. THE COURT: On the record. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Attorney General, Mr. Schwartz, is not opposed to trying to arrange a new facility, but he can't do that at the moment, he would have to look into this. And as he stated, the plaintiff has no right to select the facility he's going to stay at during the two or three-day trial. Mr. Lewis, and correct me again, if I'm wrong, has stated that he just won't testify because of this situation  but he doesn't want to dismiss the case himself; he's not consenting to dropping the case. If there's no other solution, I would dismiss the case and certainly preserve his right to appeal. There's a presumption that any facility he's staying at, he's going to be treated properly and lawfully. Id. at 14-15. The court then inquired as to whether any defendants were still assigned to Great Meadow and, upon learning that they were, noted that another option available to it was just to adjourn this trial for about a few weeks or a month, return Lewis to Auburn, and try the case at the federal courthouse in Syracuse. Id. at 15. After consulting with Lewis, Chen reported to the court that because his client fears for his life at Great Meadow, Lewis's preferred choice would be to have the trial adjourned until it could be conducted in Syracuse. Id. at 16. Defense counsel objected, reiterating that inmates have no right to determine where they are housed and noting that adjournment would inconvenience his clients. He offered yet another option: during trial, Lewis could be placed in the SHU at Great Meadow where surveillance cameras operated around the clock. If this accommodation was insufficient to persuade Lewis to proceed with trial, defense counsel urged dismissal. Judge Kahn allowed Chen to confer with Lewis to discuss this option, but Lewis did not consent to SHU placement, noting that some of the alleged abuse occurred at that site. Chen again urged adjournment and transfer of the trial to Syracuse. Having heard from the parties, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. This appeal followed.