March 23, 2020

BY ECF The Honorable Judge Paul A. Crotty United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 RE: United States v. Shakeil Chandler 19 Cr. 867 (PAC)

Honorable Judge Crotty:

Shakeil Chandler respectfully moves the Court for an order granting his release or, in the alternative, a bail hearing to be held this week. Information now exists that was not known at the time of Mr. Chandler’s last court appearance “that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of [Mr. Chandler] as required and the safety of the community.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). If released, Mr. Chandler will return to his home in Brooklyn, where he resides with his mother and his three-year-old son, with electronic monitoring.

On March 4, 2020, defense counsel requested a bail hearing for Mr. Chandler. In response to counsel’s letter motion, on March 9, 2020, Your Honor held a conference to hear counsel’s concerns about violations of Mr. Chandler’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. While the Court declined to release Mr. Chandler on bail at that time, Your Honor directed the defense to bring it to the Court’s attention if Mr. Chandler continued being denied access to counsel while incarcerated. I write now, requesting Mr. Chandler’s immediate release from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) both in response to that instruction, and in light of the rapidly changing public health crisis that imperils Shakeil Chandler’s physical health. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A) (listing a person’s “physical and mental condition” as one of the release factors to be considered in a bail application).

I. The COVID-19 outbreak compels Mr. Chandler’s release.

We are facing a serious and urgent public health crisis. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19, a new strain of coronavirus, as a global

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 22

2

pandemic.1 On January 21, 2020, Washington State announced the first confirmed case of coronavirus in the United States.2 Only two months later, COVID-19 has infected over 33,018 people across the United States, leading to at least 428 deaths.3

The exponential rate of coronavirus infection is unparalleled. The first case of coronavirus in New York State was announced on March 1, 2020. Less than two weeks later, New York State reported 325 positive cases. To date, the state has amassed 15,168 confirmed cases of the virus, with 114 deaths.4 In a five-day period between March 15 and March 20, New York State experienced a 1,064% increase in new confirmed cases of COVID-19.5 As of March 21, 2020 in New York City, there are 8,115 positive cases and 60 deaths resulting from the virus.6 Ten days ago, New York City had only 53 confirmed cases.7 New York now has more confirmed cases of coronavirus than any other state in the country. In fact, New York has 5% of coronavirus cases nationwide.8 And the majority of those cases are in New York City, making it an epicenter of the pandemic.9

In response to this public health crisis, Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a State of Emergency in New York State on March 7, 2020.10 Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a State of Emergency in New York City on March 12, 2020, banning gatherings of over 500 people.11 On March 20, 2020, Governor Cuomo directed all non-essential workers to work from home, requiring individuals to maintain 6 feet of distance between each other.12 The same day, the

1 WHO Characterizes COVID-19 as a Pandemic, World Health Organization (Mar. 11, 2020), at https://bit.ly/2W8dwpS. 2 First Patient With Wuhan Coronavirus Is Identified in the U.S., The New York Times (Jan. 21, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/health/cdc-coronavirus.html. 3 Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak, The New York Times (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://nyti.ms/2U4kmud (updating regularly). 4 Id. 5 Watch How the Coronavirus Spread Across the United States, The New York Times (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-us-cases-spread.html. 6 Coronavirus, New York City Health (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://on.nyc.gov/39ME7wU (updating regularly). 7 Id. 8 Coronavirus Live Updates, The New York Times (Mar. 22, 2020) at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-updates-world-usa.html (updating regularly). 9 Coronavirus in N.Y.C.: Region Is Now an Epicenter of the Pandemic, The New York Times (Mar. 23, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/nyregion/Coronavirus-new-York-epicenter.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage. 10 At Novel Coronavirus Briefing, Governmor Cuomo Declares State of Emergency to Contain Spread of Virus, New York State (Mar. 11, 2020) at https://on.ny.gov/2TKzIoz. 11 DeBlasio Declares State of Emergency in NYC, and Large Gatherings Are Banned, The New York Times (Mar. 12, 2020). 12 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), New York State Department of Health (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://on.ny.gov/2vfFQvy (updating regularly).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 22

3

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared New York “a major disaster.”13

While adults over sixty years old and people with chronic medical conditions are at heightened risk for COVID-19, young, otherwise healthy individuals are not immune from infection. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that nearly 40% of patients hospitalized from coronavirus were 20 to 54 years old.14 In New York, 18- to 49-year-olds comprise more than half of all cases in the state.15 With thousands of confirmed cases in New York City that indicate community spread, we must take every necessary action to protect vulnerable populations and the community at large.

a. Conditions of pretrial confinement create the ideal environment for the transmission of coronavirus.

“Prisons are petri dishes for contagious respiratory illnesses.”16 Inmates cycle in and out of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pretrial facilities from all over the world and the country, and people who work in the facilities leave and return daily, without screening or testing. On March 21, 2020, an inmate at Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) tested positive for the coronavirus.17 The individual “complained of chest pains on Thursday, a few days after he arrived at the facility.”18 When he first arrived at the facility, according to authorities, he was asymptomatic. The effect on the population at MDC remains to be seen, but as the chief physician at Rikers Island cautioned, “A storm is coming.”19

Given what we know about COVID-19, the BOP’s quest to contain the infection seems futile. Coronavirus is highly contagious. On average, one person with the coronavirus will infect

13 President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for New York, FEMA (Mar. 20, 2020), at https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2020/03/20/president-donald-j-trump-approves-major-disaster-declaration-new-york. 14 Younger Adults Make Up Big Portion of Coronavirus Hospitalizations in U.S., The New York Times (Mar. 20, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html. 15 Coronavirus Live Updates, The New York Times (Mar. 22, 2020) at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/world/coronavirus-updates-world-usa.html (updating regularly). 16 Letters to the Editor: A prison doctor’s stark warning on coronavirus, jails and prisons, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 20, 2020), at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-20/prison-doctors-stark-warning-on-coronavirus-and-incarceration. See also Joseph A. Bick (2007). Infection Control in Jails and Prisons. Clinical Infectious Diseases 45(8):1047-1055, at https://doi.org/10.1086/521910. 17 1st fed inmate tests positive for coronavirus, A.P. News (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://apnews.com/ec49cc7f4d1b00bc5010dfb6d935e042. 18 Id. 19 ‘A Storm Is Coming’: Fears of an Inmate Epidemic as the Virus Spreads in the Jails, The New York Times (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/nyregion/nyc-coronavirus-rikers-island.html.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 22

4

between two to three other individuals.20 But public health experts agree that incarcerated individuals “are at special risk of infection, given their living situations,” and “may also be less able to participate in proactive measures to keep themselves safe;” “infection control is challenging in these settings.”21

Internationally, prisons have proven ripe for the rapid spread of COVID-19. In China, officials confirmed 500 cases of coronavirus in prisons.22 Courts across Iran have granted 54,000 inmates furlough as part of the measures to contain coronavirus across the country.23 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called for Iran to release Americans detained there because of the “deeply troubling” “[r]eports that COVID-19 has spread to Iranian prisons,” noting that “[t]heir detention amid increasingly deteriorating conditions defies basic human decency.”24

On March 20, 2020, the New York City Department of Correction announced that one inmate and seven staff members in the city jails had been diagnosed with coronavirus.25 One day later, on March 21, 2020, it became clear that no fewer than 38 people have tested positive.26 At least 58 additional people are being held in contagious disease and quarantine units in the city’s jail system.27 But the cases are not abating. The chairwoman of the New York City Board of Correction urged, “The best path forward to protecting the community of people housed and working in the jails is to rapidly decrease the number of people housed and working in them.”28

b. The MCC remains unprepared for a coronavirus outbreak.

Inmates at the MCC—a massive pretrial detention facility housing approximately 700

20 The average coronavirus patient infects at least 2 others, suggesting the virus is far more contagious than flu, Business Insider (Mar. 17, 2020), at https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-contagious-r-naught-average-patient-spread-2020-3. 21 “Achieving A Fair And Effective COVID-19 Response: An Open Letter to Vice-President Mike Pence, and Other Federal, State, and Local Leaders from Public Health and Legal Experts in the United States,” (Mar. 2, 2020), at https://bit.ly/2W9V6oS. 22 Rhea Mahbubani, Chinese Jails Have Become Hotbeds of Coronavirus As More Than 500 Cases Have Erupted, Prompting the Ouster of Several Officials, Business Insider (Feb. 21, 2020), at https://bit.ly/2vSzSRT. 23 Claudia Lauer and Colleen Long, US Prisons, Jails On Alert for Spread of Coronavirus, The Associated Press (Mar. 7, 2020), at https://apnews.com/af98b0a38aaabedbcb059092db356697. 24 Jennifer Hansler and Kylie Atwood, Pompeo calls for humanitarian release of wrongfully detained Americans in Iran amid coronavirus outbreak, CNN (Mar. 10, 2020), at https://cnn.it/2W4OpV7. 25 38 positive for coronavirus in NYC jails, including Rikers, ABC News (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/38-positive-coronavirus-nyc-jails-including-rikers-69731911. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 22

5

people—are at serious risk of contracting the virus.29 The medical care at the MCC has repeatedly failed to adequately address even routine medical conditions, including for Shakeil Chandler himself;30 in times of crisis, the medical care at the facility has halted entirely.31

On March 13, 2020, nearly two weeks after the first confirmed case of coronavirus in New York State, the Bureau of Prisons announced a 30-day suspension of all visits to all federal correctional facilities. But prohibiting visits to correctional facilities is insufficient to stem the spread of illness. “[T]here is no way to stop the daily flow of guards, teachers, food service and healthcare workers. Someone is certain to bring the virus in and take it back out while they are asymptomatic.”32

Because there is currently no vaccine or cure for COVID-19, the primary focus is on preventing the spread of the virus. To prevent new infections, the CDC strongly recommends the following actions: thorough and frequent handwashing, cleaning surfaces with Environmental Protection Agency approved disinfectants, keeping at least 6 feet of space between people, and social distancing.33

To date, the MCC has not met even the most basic recommendations of the CDC for preventing the spread of coronavirus. Maintaining six feet of distance from other inmates is all but impossible in a correctional facility where most individuals, including Shakeil Chandler, are double-bunked in a single cell, sharing a toilet and sink with a cellmate and a common shower with at least sixteen other people. In the days since March 13, the MCC has issued hand soap to inmates in Mr. Chandler’s housing unit only two times. Because commissary is currently closed, this soap must be used not only for handwashing, but also for showers and washing clothing; no one is allowed to purchase additional soap.

In addition to unhygienic living conditions, frequent movement between units at the

29 See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Jonathan Giftos, M.D. 30 E.g., National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) Women in Prison Committee (WIP) Second Visit to BOP’s Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), Brooklyn, New York, June 3, 2016, at https://bit.ly/39JRhdW. Since he was first incarcerated in November 2019, Mr. Chandler has repeatedly encountered difficulty receiving necessary medical attention, notwithstanding multiple requests to the MCC Legal Department. 31 During a recent eight-day lockdown at the MCC, inmates on one unit reported having been forced to share one toilet, one shower, and one sink among twenty-six people, and were prevented from washing their clothing: prime conditions for the spread, rather than containment, of infectious disease. On other units, toilets overflowed in two-man cells, spreading raw sewage. Inmates with serious medical conditions, including AIDS and anemia, were denied medications or medical care. Female inmates were denied feminine hygiene supplies. No clean drinking water was provided; inmates were forced to drink from their bathroom sinks, from which brown water often ran. 32 Letters to the Editor: A prison doctor’s stark warning on coronavirus, jails and prisons, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 20, 2020), at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-20/prison-doctors-stark-warning-on-coronavirus-and-incarceration. 33 Exhibit A, Affidavit of Jonathan Giftos, M.D.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 22

6

MCC over the past several weeks promises to aid the spread of the virus. In New York City jails, where there have been at least 38 confirmed cases of coronavirus, the Board of Correction chairwoman stated, “It is likely that these people have been in hundreds of housing areas and common areas over recent weeks and have been in close contact with many other people in custody and staff.”34 The MCC will encounter the same obstacle to cabining the spread. For eight days at the end of February through the beginning of March, the MCC was on total lockdown. During that period, inmates—including Mr. Chandler—report that they were frequently shuttled among various housing units as officers searched for a loaded gun. This movement promises to facilitate infection at the MCC.

The MCC’s solution to curtailing all visits for 30 days—providing additional phone minutes at no charge—presents yet another public health hurdle. The MCC has given each inmate an additional 200 phone minutes, bringing the total to 500 minutes. But with the extra phone time comes swarms of crowds. The phones in Mr. Chandler’s unit remain in constant use and are poorly cleaned, creating more opportunity to spread infection.

With each additional arrest comes increased risk of spreading the virus in MCC. Individuals who are newly arrested and potentially exposed to coronavirus, if they are not symptomatic, will be brought into the facility. There, they are held with the existing population, potentially transmitting COVID-19 to a populace held in close quarters with unsanitary conditions. These conditions are ripe for the spread of infection: The individual who tested positive for coronavirus at the MDC on March 21 first became incarcerated only a few short days before becoming symptomatic.35

Notwithstanding a confirmed case of coronavirus at MDC, the MCC remains unprepared for an outbreak. The facility does not currently have the ability to test for coronavirus and there are no general screening protocols in place. Only if an inmate self-reports symptoms will they be screened for the virus. If symptomatic, the inmate will be “isolated” in their cell, exposing their cellmate to risk. The MCC has only thirty N-95 masks and no one, including correction officers, is allowed to have hand sanitizer because it is alcohol based. The use of gloves remains discretionary among officers.

Given what we know about coronavirus, conditions of confinement generally, and the lack of preparedness at the MCC, the fact that there are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 to date at the MCC reflects the fact that the MCC lacks the ability to test for the virus. It does not mean that no one in the facility is infected.

c. The federal judiciary has begun to set bail conditions for previously detained individuals in light of the coronavirus.

34 38 positive for coronavirus in NYC jails, including Rikers, ABC News (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/38-positive-coronavirus-nyc-jails-including-rikers-69731911. 35 1st fed inmate tests positive for coronavirus, A.P. News (Mar. 21, 2020), at https://apnews.com/ec49cc7f4d1b00bc5010dfb6d935e042.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 22

7

The judiciary has recently begun to recognize and address this exceptional crisis. On March 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Orenstein denied a remand application, holding that increasing the population of the Metropolitan Detention Center could present a “danger to the community”—the staff and inmates inside the jail—by potentially bringing the virus into the facility. United States v. Raihan, 20-CR-68 (BMC) (Mar. 12, 2020). A week later, conditions worsened exponentially.

On March 19, 2020, thirteen days after having remanded defendant Dante Stephens, Judge Nathan reversed herself “in light of circumstances that have changed since the March 6 hearing,” namely, “the unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.” United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN) (Mar. 19, 2020). In setting bail, Judge Nathan noted that “[a] comprehensive view of the danger the Defendant poses to the community requires considering all factors,” including COVID-19. Id. Similarly, on March 19, 2020, the threat of coronavirus led Judge Ramos to release a formerly detained individual on bail. See United States v. Santiago Ramos, 20-CR-04 (ER).

In the throes of this public health crisis, the Court must release Shakeil Chandler to protect his physical health.

II. The Sixth Amendment demands Mr. Chandler’s release.

The conditions of confinement at the MCC have gutted Shakeil Chandler’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Until he is released, Mr. Chandler will continue to suffer violations of his constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the cornerstone of our adversarial system of criminal justice. “The right to consult with legal counsel about being released on bond, entering a plea, negotiating and accepting a plea agreement, going to trial, testifying at trial, locating trial witnesses, and other decisions confronting the detained suspect, whose innocence is presumed, is a right inextricably linked to the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.” Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. v. Bureau of Prisons, Docket No. 19-1778 (2d. Cir. Mar. 20, 2020). In recognition of this vital right, BOP regulations instruct that detention center wardens “shall provide the opportunity for pretrial inmate-attorney visits on a seven-days-a-week basis.” 28 C.F.R. § 551.l 17(a) (emphasis added).

A detention facility therefore violates the Sixth Amendment when it “unreasonabl[y] interfere[s] with the accused person’s ability to consult counsel.” Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175, 185 (2d Cir. 2001). Unreasonable interference requires a showing far less alarming than the one present here. In Benjamin, the Second Circuit held that New York City correctional facilities violated the right to counsel when defense attorneys “routinely face[d] unpredictable, substantial delays in meeting with clients” and were “forced to wait between 45 minutes and two hours, or even substantially longer, after arriving at a facility to see a client.” 264 F.3d at 179. These circumstances, where the Second Circuit refused to dissolve a consent decree providing judicial supervision of legal visitation in City correctional facilities, are far less jarring than those Mr. Chandler has been forced to endure.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 22

8

For more than a month, Mr. Chandler has borne a complete disruption of his right to counsel. On February 27, 2020, the MCC entirely shut its doors to legal and social visitation for eight straight days. During that time, Mr. Chandler was confined to a single jail cell 24 hours a day. He, like all inmates, was denied phone calls to his attorney and lacked computer access for more than a week. When he was finally able to meet with counsel at the MCC on March 6, the visit occurred not in the regular counsel visit room, but in the social visit area. In this open space, where other inmates and their counsel sat mere feet away, Mr. Chandler was deprived a private, privileged conversation with counsel. This is inconsistent with the constitutional right to counsel. In Wolfish v. Levi, the Second Circuit held that the MCC “severely constrained” an inmate’s “access to legal counsel” where dedicated attorney visiting hours were limited to two hours a day, and most attorney visits were “made in the general visiting rooms during visiting hours thereby entailing long delays, limiting the attorney’s time with his client, and totally vitiating confidentiality.” 573 F.2d 118, 133 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding the), rev’d on other grounds, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).

In all of March, there was a brief, three-day window during which counsel could communicate with clients in person. On March 10, 2020, the MCC reopened for counsel visits. Three days later, on Friday, March 13, in response to the public health crisis posed by COVID-19, the BOP issued a notice that all visits in all federal correctional facilities would be suspended for at least 30 days. On March 19, defense counsel for Mr. Chandler emailed the MCC Legal Department to request a phone call with Mr. Chandler. The next day, defense counsel followed up with a request to meet with Mr. Chandler in person or by video conference. To date, the BOP has not responded to either of counsel’s requests. And there is no reason to believe the request for an in-person attorney visit will be granted. Since the suspension of counsel visits on March 13, the MCC reports that it has not received a single request from any defense counsel that they deem appropriate for an in-person visit.

In addition to being unable to meet with counsel in person, Mr. Chandler has suffered a complete inability to review critical discovery in preparation for trial. For the past month, the Government has continued producing discovery in Mr. Chandler’s case. Days before the lockdown at MCC, on February 24, 2020, the Government turned over supplemental discovery in Mr. Chandler’s case. This production included a letter with two disclosures pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) that directly undercut the prosecution’s theory of the case and provide evidence that Mr. Chandler did not possess a firearm, the sole count on the indictment. Additional lab reports disclosed by the government in this production further support this conclusion. The production also included a CD with multiple surveillance videos of the incident. More recently, on March 9, 2020, the Government produced audio recordings of 911 calls relevant to Mr. Chandler’s case. Upon receipt of each new set of production, defense counsel mailed the discovery to Mr. Chandler. Defense counsel also requested the Government send Mr. Chandler all of the discovery it has produced in his case. To date, Mr. Chandler has not received all of his discovery.

Even assuming Mr. Chandler eventually receives his discovery, the conditions at the MCC prevent Mr. Chandler from evaluating those materials. The supplemental discovery includes multiple surveillance videos and 911 calls, which require a computer to review. But Mr. Chandler does not have access to a computer to review discovery. In fact, Mr. Chandler has not

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 22

9

had access to the law library at the MCC since February 19, 2020. The legal computer on his unit, 5 South, was destroyed during the lockdown. Now, in the face of the coronavirus outbreak, the law library functions simultaneously as the educational department and the general library, with a limited capacity of fifteen inmates. Mr. Chandler has spoken with his unit counselor about his legal needs, but has received no assurances of when he will regain access to a computer outfitted to review discovery. And because his counsel visits have been suspended until at least April 12, 2020, he cannot use the computers in the legal visiting room to review his discovery.

Further, in the likely event that someone at the MCC tests positive for coronavirus, the entire facility will go on a total lockdown as it did in February, further inhibiting Mr. Chandler’s constitutional rights. At MDC, immediately after an inmate tested positive for the coronavirus on March 21, 2020, the facility went on lockdown indefinitely: No inmates are allowed into or out of the building for any reason, including court appearances. Certainly we can expect this will be the case when a COVID-19 case is confirmed at the MCC. That event will mark the complete evisceration of Mr. Chandler’s right to counsel.

As the public health crisis rapidly evolves, so too does the judiciary’s perspective on release. On March 18, 2020, Chief Judge McMahon granted an application for bail based on compelling reasons related to the current health crisis. Defense counsel had argued that “[a] complete cessation of visits at this critical time of preparation would make it impossible to adequately prepare for trial….” United States v. Hudson, 19-CR-496 (CM) (Mar. 13, 2020). Five days earlier, she had denied the request. Id.

Mr. Chandler remains innocent until proven guilty. To mount an effective defense at trial, Mr. Chandler must be released from custody. This extraordinary moment requires judicial intervention to safeguard Mr. Chandler’s constitutional rights.

III. The Bail Reform Act requires Mr. Chandler’s temporary release.

When an individual is in custody, the Bail Reform Act “permit[s] the temporary release of the person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate person, to the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for another compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). There is no greater necessity for the preparation of a “person’s defense” than access to counsel. And there is no more “compelling reason” than a person’s physical health.

Indeed, Judge Nathan recognized that “the obstacles the current public health crisis poses to the preparation of the Defendant’s defense constitute a compelling reason [to release the Defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i).” United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN) (Mar. 19, 2020) (releasing the defendant concluding that in light of changed circumstances, Mr. Stephens does not pose a danger to the community). See also United States v. Perez, 19-CR-297 (PAE) (Mar. 19, 2020) (concluding “compelling reasons exist for temporary release of the defendant from custody during the current public health crisis”).

In United States v. Rodriguez, the Court held that with respect to an accused’s need to consult with counsel, “Section 3142(i)(3) reaches above the minimum” standards set by the Sixth

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 22

10

Amendment. 2014 WL 4094561, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (Scott, M.J.). The subsection’s plain text “mandates the removal of any impediment to ‘private consultations’ [between attorney and client] that are qualitatively and quantitatively ‘reasonable.’” Id.; cf. Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Section 3142(i)(3) is designed to protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and if that right is being infringed, [the court] has the statutory authority to protect [defendant’s] access to counsel.”).

At the very least, the Bail Reform Act demands that Mr. Chandler be released for the duration of the coronavirus outbreak.

Conclusion

The Court cannot ignore the restriction of Mr. Chandler’s constitutional right to counsel and the substantial threat incarceration poses to Mr. Chandler’s physical well-being. As the Second Circuit recently opined, “the careful balancing of needs and rights that [ ] emergencies require is likely not best achieved by protracted and contentious litigation after the fact, and certainly not at the appellate level. It requires real-time, comprehensive solutions, reached in cooperative institutional discussions.” Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. v. Bureau of Prisons, Docket No. 19-1778 (2d. Cir. Mar. 20, 2020) (“direct[ing] the District Court [to help] ensure that the Federal Defenders have meaningful, continuous access to their clients either in person or by remote access pending adjudication of [legal claims against the MDC, including Sixth Amendment violations] as these claims may be amended to address similar issues of access [to counsel] arising during the current public health emergency [COVID-19]”).

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court issue an order releasing Shakeil Chandler on bail. In the alternative, I respectfully request a bail hearing this week for Mr. Chandler.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marne Lenox Assistant Federal Defender (212) 417-8721

cc: AUSA Jun Xiang (by e-mail)

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 10 of 22

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 11 of 22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

APPLICATION OF VULNERABLE

INMATE FOR RELEASE FROM MCC

: : : : : : : : : : : :

AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN GIFTOS, M.D.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X I, Jonathan Giftos, hereby affirm as follows:

1. I am a doctor duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. I am

board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine.

2. I am currently the Medical Director, Addiction Medicine & Drug User Health at

Project Renewal and a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at Albert

Einstein College of Medicine. I was previously the Clinical Director of Substance Use Treatment

for NYC Health & Hospitals, Division of Correctional Health Services at Rikers Island. In that

capacity, I was responsible for the diversion, harm reduction, treatment and reentry services for

incarcerated patients with substance use disorders. I further served as the medical director of the

Key Extended Entry Program (KEEP), the nation's oldest and largest jail-based opioid treatment

program that provides methadone and buprenorphine to incarcerated patients with opioid use

disorders. I successfully led an effort to remove non-clinical barriers to opioid treatment program

enrollment in 2017, which dramatically expanded treatment access from 25% to over 80%, while

also reducing post-release mortality for people with opioid use disorder.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 12 of 22

2

3. I have extensive experience working with vulnerable populations such as the

incarcerated and those experiencing homelessness.

4. I submit this affidavit in support of vulnerable defendants’ (as defined by the CDC)

Motion for Temporary Release from Custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I. Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City

5. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the rapidly

spreading outbreak of COVID-19, a respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, is a

pandemic, announcing that the virus is both highly contagious and deadly.1 To date, the virus is

known to spread from person-to-person through respiratory droplets, close personal contact, and

from contact with contaminated surfaces and objects.2 The CDC also warns of “community

spread” where the virus spreads easily and sustainably within a community where the source of

the infection is unknown.3 Experts are still learning how it spreads.

6. As of March 18, 2020, novel coronavirus has infected over 193,475 people, leading

to 7,864 deaths worldwide.4 In the United States, there are at least 5,881 confirmed cases and

there have been at least 107 deaths.5 There are confirmed coronavirus cases in every state, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

1 World Health Organization, Media Briefing on March 11, 2020: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019: How it Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html 3 Id. 4 Novel Coronavirus Situation Dashboard, World Health Organization https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd. 5 Coronavirus Map: Tracking the Spread of the Outbreak, The New York Times (March 18, 2020), at https://nyti.ms/2U4kmud (updating regularly).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 13 of 22

3

7. Governor Cuomo declared a State of Emergency in New York State on March 7,

2020. Mayor De Blasio declared a State of Emergency in New York City on March 12, 2020. As

of March 18, 2020, there are 2,382 positive cases in New York State with 1,339 of those cases

being in New York City.6 Among the positive cases in New York City are a number of people

who work in courthouses, law enforcement, legal offices, and the medical field, increasing the

likelihood of exposure to and by inmates: a security officer and an agent in the U.S. Attorney’s

Office, SDNY;7 a NYC Department of Corrections investigator (who has died from the virus);8 a

lawyer with an office in Midtown Manhattan (and his wife and son);9 a healthcare worker in

Manhattan; an attorney and legal intern in local New York State courts; and an attorney at the

Brooklyn Supreme Court.10

8. There is currently no vaccine or cure. The primary focus is on preventing the spread

of the virus at this juncture. To prevent new infections, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention strongly recommend the following actions: thorough and frequent handwashing,

cleaning surfaces with EPA approved disinfectants, keeping at least 6 feet of space between people,

6 Information on Novel Coronavirus, New York Department of Health, https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/coronavirus (last visited March 17, 2020). 7 Email Communication with Edward Tyrrell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY (March 14, 2020). 8 NYC Corrections Officer Dies of Coronavirus, https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/nyc-correction-officer-dies-of-coronavirus 9 Midtown Lawyer, Family and Friends Test Positive, https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-attorney-in-critical-condition-city-works-to-trace-movements-awaits-more-tests/2311723/ 10 Information about Coronavirus and New York State Courts, https://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/covid.shtml; see also Two People with Coronavirus were in Manhattan and Brooklyn Courts, https://twnews.us/us-news/two-people-with-coronavirus-were-in-manhattan-brooklyn-courts.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 14 of 22

4

and avoiding group settings.11 Social distancing has also been encouraged to slow the rate of

COVID-19 infections so that hospitals have the resources to address infected individuals with

urgent medical needs.12 The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, to slow the spread

of the coronavirus, warns that social gatherings in groups of more than 10 people should be

avoided.13 In correctional settings, such sanitation, social distancing, and self-quarantining

measures are nearly impossible especially when inmates are routinely shackled and escorted with

other prisoners.14

Certain Identifiable Populations Are Far More Vulnerable To COVID-19 Than The Population At Large Is.

9. The Centers for Disease Control have identified two groups of people at higher risk

of contracting and succumbing to COVID-19: adults over 60 years old and people with chronic

medical conditions.15

10. COVID-19 is more dangerous to persons in these high-risk groups than to the

general population. Older people who contract COVID-19 are more likely to die than people under

the age of 60. In a February 29th WHO-China Joint Mission Report, the preliminary mortality rate

analyses showed that individuals age 60-69 had an overall 3.6% mortality rate and those 70-79

11 How to Protect Yourself, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/prevention.html. 12 Coronavirus, Social Distancing, and Self-Quarantine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-social-distancing-and-self-quarantine. 13 The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf. 14 See We Are Not a Hospital: A Prison Braces for the Coronavirus, New York Times, March 18, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/us/coronavirus-prisons-jails.html. 15 If You Are at Higher Risk, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://tinyurl.com/vtbebzc; see also Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf at 12.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 15 of 22

5

years old had an 8% mortality rate.16 For individuals 40 years and younger, the mortality rate was

as low as .2%. It has been found that older people diagnosed with COVID-19 are more likely to

be very sick and require hospitalization to survive because the acute symptoms include respiratory

distress, cardiac injury, arrhythmia, septic shock, liver dysfunction, kidney injury and multi-organ

failure. Access to a mechanical ventilator is often required. People with chronic medical

conditions (no matter their age) are also at significantly greater risk from COVID-19 because their

already-weakened systems are less able to fight the virus. These chronic medical conditions

include lung disease, cancer, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, renal disease, liver disease,

diabetes, immunocompromising conditions, and pregnancy. Those with pre-existing medical

conditions have a higher probability of death if infected. The WHO-China Joint Mission Report

provides that the mortality rate for those with cardiovascular disease was 13.2%, 9.2% for diabetes,

8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer.17

In a March 17th Washington Post article tracking the 100 United States COVID-19

deaths, it is reported that many of the fatalities had underlying medical conditions, which made it

harder for their bodies to fight off COVID-19. And nearly all — about 85 percent — were older

than 60; about 45 percent were older than 80.18

Correctional Settings Increase The Risk Of Transmission

11. Correctional settings increase the risk of contracting an infectious disease, like

COVID-19, due to the high numbers of people with chronic, often untreated, illnesses housed in a

16 Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths Chart, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ (data analysis based on WHO-China Joint Mission Report, supra). 17 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf at 12. 18 U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Reaches 100, The Washington Post, March 17, 2020, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-coronavirus-death-toll-reaches-100/2020/03/17/f8d770c2-67a8-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 16 of 22

6

setting with minimal levels of sanitation, limited access to personal hygiene, limited access to

medical care, and no possibility of staying at a distance from others. Correctional facilities house

large groups of inmates together, and move inmates in groups to eat, do recreation, and go to court.

They frequently have insufficient medical care for the population, and, in times of crisis, even

those medical staff cease coming to the facility. Hot water, soap and paper towels are frequently

in limited supply. Inmates, rather than professional cleaners, are responsible for cleaning the

facilities and often not given appropriate supplies. This means there are more people who are

susceptible to getting infected all congregated together in a context in which fighting the spread of

an infection is nearly impossible.

12. Outbreaks of the flu regularly occur in jails, and during the H1N1 epidemic in 2009,

many jails and prisons dealt with high numbers of cases.19

13. Inmates in New York City have already begun to test positive for COVID-19.20

An inmate at Rikers and an inmate at Nassau County Correctional Facility (which houses both

state and federal pre-trial detainees) tested positive this week.21 A corrections officer at Rikers

has also tested positive.22

19 Prisons and Jails are Vulnerable to COVID-19 Outbreaks, The Verge (Mar. 7, 2020) at

https://bit.ly/2TNcNZY.

20 Rikers Island Inmate Tests Positive for Coronavirus, in a First for New York City, New York Magazine (March 18, 2020). 21 Id.; Nassau County Jail Inmate Tests Positive, https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavirus/inmate-at-nassau-county-jail-long-island-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-officials. 22 Rikers Island Inmate Tests Positive for Coronavirus, in a First for New York City, New York Magazine (March 18, 2020).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 17 of 22

7

Specific Conditions At MCC New York

14. Based on my understanding of the specific conditions at the federal pre-trial

detention center in Manhattan (“MCC”) as contained in published reports and communicated to

me by Deirdre D. von Dornum, Attorney-in-Charge of the Federal Defenders of New York, these

conditions pose heightened risks to already vulnerable inmates of contracting the novel

coronavirus and of developing acute symptoms from the virus.

15. The size of the population and the conditions of confinement at MCC increase the

risk of infection substantially, because it is impossible for inmates to maintain a 6-foot distance

from others, to avoid large groups, or to implement sufficient hand-washing and sanitization of

surfaces.

a. Approximately 750 inmates are held at the MCC, at least 10% of whom (and likely

a higher percentage) fall into the high risk groups identified by the CDC.23 The facility

was designed to hold only 474 inmates.24

b. New inmates arrive at MCC from all over the world each week. The pace of new

incarcerations has not slowed despite the coronavirus. These new inmates, who have been

living in the community as coronavirus spreads, are screened only for fever and recent

travel to designated hotspot countries before joining the general population of inmates.25

c. Correctional officers who live in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania come

in and out of the facility each day without medical screening.26 Significantly, in a March

23 Statement of Warden Licon-Vitale (March 12, 2020) (approximately 10% of inmates at MCC are high-risk for COVID-19 within the CDC’s definition). 24 The Real Scandal at the MCC, The Atlantic (Aug. 16, 2019). 25 Id. 26 Id.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 18 of 22

8

18th CDC report, an epidemiological investigation revealed that coronavirus-infected staff

members contributed to the outbreak in a nursing home facility with ineffective infection

control and prevention and staff members working in multiple facilities.27 The Seattle

nursing home outbreak demonstrates that individuals with underlying health conditions and

advanced age, in a shared location, are at a high risk of death, especially when resources

and staffing become inadequate.28

d. Male inmates in the general population at MCC are housed either in small two-man

cells (originally designed for single occupancy) with a single shared toilet and sink or in

large open dormitory units housing approximately 30 inmates with shared toilets and sinks.

The windows in the cells do not open. Recreation on the roof is available for at most one

hour a day. In the wake of a recent lockdown preceding the COVID-19 lockdown, one of

only two toilets on a dormitory unit was broken, leaving over 25 men to share a single toilet

and two sinks.

e. There is a small unit for approximately 30 female inmates, who are housed in two-

woman cells with a shared sink and toilet. No outside recreation is available to female

inmates at MCC. The windows on the unit do not open. Several of the female inmates

have chronic medical conditions.

f. During the preceding lockdown, the MCC housing units were not cleaned for two

weeks because the inmates, who are responsible for cleaning the institution, were locked

in their cells.29 In addition, there was no laundry available, and inmates were forced to

27 COVID-19 in a Long-term Care Facility—King County Washington, February 27-March 9, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6912e1-H.pdf. 28 Id. 29 Statement of Warden Licon-Vitale at SDNY Meeting on BOP and Coronavirus (March 12, 2020).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 19 of 22

9

sleep on the same sheets and wear dirty clothes for the entire period.30 Female inmates

who were menstruating were denied sanitary napkins or other feminine hygiene items and

forced to wear a single pair of underwear for the entire two week period.

g. No hand sanitizer is currently available to inmates at MCC.31

h. Tissues are not readily available. Inmates use toilet paper to blow their noses. Each

inmate is provided only one roll of toilet paper per week.

i. Each inmate is given one small bar of soap a week, at most32. Access to additional

soap is limited to those inmates who have sufficient commissary funds to purchase it, and

dependent on the commissary being open; it is routinely closed during lockdowns.33

j. Inmates prepare all inmate meals and this meal preparation, with the exception of

kosher and halal meals, is performed in a single kitchen.

k. Inmates eat meals in large groups.

l. Inmates are responsible for sanitizing the housing unit common areas, and frequently

lack adequate cleaning supplies to do so.

m. Inmates have not been informed of the symptoms of COVID-19, or of how to prevent

the spread of the infection.

30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 20 of 22

10

n. The facility has not informed the inmate population of what the protocol will be for

symptomatic inmates;34 absent a transparent protocol, inmates in correctional settings often fear

they will be confined in solitary if they volunteer that they are symptomatic.

16. Inmates at MCC who do contract COVID-19 are at higher risk for developing

acute symptoms than if they were in the community, because MCC lacks the medical resources

to care for symptomatic inmates.

a. There is no separate medical unit or facility for ill inmates.35 Unlike many

Federal Correctional Institutions and even Rikers’ Island, MCC has no

physical space in which an ill inmate can convalesce that is separate from

other inmates, warm, clean and has access to fresh water and regular hand-

washing.

b. On weekdays, there are only two doctors regularly available at MCC to

care for all 750 inmates. Even this highly limited number is likely to

decrease as doctors themselves go into quarantine. Neither of these

doctors specialize in infectious diseases.

c. There are no doctors at MCC on weekends or evenings.

d. People who contract COVID-19 can deteriorate rapidly, even before a test

result can be received. They need constant monitoring. Most people in the

higher risk categories will require more advanced support: positive

pressure ventilation, and in extreme cases, extracorporeal mechanical

34 Id. 35 Id.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 21 of 22

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 16 Filed 03/23/20 Page 22 of 22

[Type text]

March 27, 2020 BY ECF The Honorable Paul A. Crotty United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Chandler, 19 Cr. 867 (PAC) Dear Judge Crotty: The Government submits this letter in opposition to the defendant’s March 23, 2020 application for release from pretrial detention. (See Doc. No. 16.)

The current bail application is the defendant’s fourth. The Court denied the defendant’s three prior applications because it found that the defendant’s release would endanger others and the community at large.1 The facts supporting that finding have not changed. As before, the defendant is charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm because, in the aftermath of a gang-related shooting, he held a revolver that contained seven spent shell casings. As before, the defendant is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty in 2009 to first-degree manslaughter because he shot and killed another person. The defendant identifies no new facts bearing on his dangerousness. Instead, he argues that, in light of the COVID-19 health crisis, the Metropolitan Correctional Center (the “MCC’) has become uninhabitable for inmates and that measures put in place to limit the spread of COVID-19 have violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Court should deny the bail application. First, the defendant remains dangerous, and detention remains appropriate on that basis. The conditions of confinement are not a statutory basis for release on bail. Second, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is taking substantial steps to limit the spread of COVID-19. Third, the defendant—a 33-year-old with no chronic health problems—has not shown that he is uniquely at-risk for developing serious symptoms from COVID-19 in the event he becomes infected. Fourth, the defendant is being afforded reasonable access to counsel under the circumstances and any temporary restriction on in-person counsel visits has not impaired

1 As set forth below, the first bail application was denied by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, and the second and third applications were denied by Your Honor.

The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 14

Page 2 his defense. Finally, there is no “compelling reason” to temporarily release the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). I. Background A. The Charged Conduct

Beginning October 3 and into the early morning of October 4, 2019, a party was held near

the intersection of Beach Avenue and McGraw Avenue in the Bronx. Social media posts reveal that the occasion for the party was to celebrate the Grape Street Crips, a gang originating in California with members in New York City. Social media posts further suggest that the defendant was a member of the Grape Street Crips: earlier in 2019, the defendant had posed in photographs with other Grape Street Crips members who were displaying gang signs and wearing gang attire. Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on October 4, the police were alerted, through 911 calls and shot spotter activations, that numerous gunshots were being fired near the Crips party. Officers responded to the scene and were flagged down by the defendant, who was trying to get medical assistance for his friend (the “Friend”), who had been shot multiple times. As officers were attending to the Friend, the defendant stood on the sidewalk. A police officer saw the defendant drop an object onto the sidewalk and kick at the object twice. The second kick connected with the object, which landed in the street. Immediately, police officers apprehended the defendant and secured the object.

The object that the defendant tried to kick away was a Taurus .357 magnum caliber revolver (the “Gun”), which contained seven spent shell casings. Subsequent tests determined that the Gun was operable. Apart from the shell casings found inside the Gun, police officers recovered numerous other shell casings on the street, including casings for at least two other calibers of ammunition. Officers also found bullet holes in cars at the scene.

At the time of the incident, the defendant was a convicted felon. In 2006, the defendant

was charged with murder and other offenses in connection with an incident in which he shot and killed another person. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law 125.20(1), and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in 2009. B. Prior Bail Applications The defendant was arrested and presented on November 20, 2019 before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. In light of the nature of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history, the Government sought detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) based on dangerousness and risk of flight. The defendant sought bail. Judge Netburn ordered the defendant detained on dangerousness grounds, noting “it’s hard to get [past] that, to have somebody who has been previously convicted of a violent offense like manslaughter and then appear before me having possessed a weapon, and in this case a weapon that has spent shells.” (Nov. 20, 2019 Tr. 15:7–15.)

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 14

Page 3 On December 16, 2019, the defendant sought bail before this Court, raising many of the same arguments already heard by Judge Netburn. At the conclusion of the argument, this Court ordered the defendant detained, noting “I think Magistrate Judge Netburn got it exactly right. I don’t think there are any conditions that are sufficient to eliminate or reduce the risk to the community so I’m going to join in the magistrate judge’s determination and deny bail to Mr. Chandler.” (Dec. 16, 2019 Tr. 22:18–22.) On March 4, 2020, the defendant made a third bail application, arguing that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the MCC had been locked down for approximately one week, during which time defense counsel was unable to meet with the defendant.2 The Court heard oral argument on March 9, by which time the defense counsel had been able to visit the defendant under a modified visiting procedure. At the oral argument, the Government advised the Court that the MCC would soon be resuming normal visiting operation and that the Government would not object to an adjournment of the trial date (then set for April 27) to make up for any time defense counsel may have lost. The Court held: “I don’t see any reason to change the decision that’s been made on two prior occasions, once by Judge Netburn, once by myself, about not admitting Mr. Chandler to bail.” (Mar. 9, 2020 Tr. 11:14–17.) The Court adjourned the trial date to May 11, 2020 to give the defense additional time to prepare.

On March 23, 2020, the defendant filed the instant bail application based on the COVID-

19 health crisis. (Doc. No. 16.)

II. Applicable Law Under the Bail Reform Act, a court must order a defendant detained upon finding that there is “no condition or combination of conditions [that] will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).

In making a detention determination, the court is required to consider: (1) the “nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence . . .”; (2) “the weight of the evidence against the person”; (3) “the history and characteristics of the person, including . . . criminal history”; (4) “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” Id. § 3142(g). III. Discussion A. The Defendant Remains a Danger to the Community Since March 9, when the Court last found that the defendant should be detained on dangerousness grounds, no new facts have emerged relating to the defendant’s dangerousness. Indeed, the defendant’s application contains almost no discussion about the defendant or the facts

2 As the Court is aware, the MCC was locked down because the BOP had reason to believe that a loaded gun had been smuggled inside. In fact, a loaded gun was recovered from a housing unit in the MCC.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 14

Page 4 of the case.3 The same considerations that led this Court and Judge Netburn to find that the defendant’s release poses an unacceptable—and immitigable—risk to community safety remain true today: the defendant is charged with unlawfully possessing a loaded handgun following a prior conviction for first-degree manslaughter.4 Unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is a “crime of violence.” United States v. Dillard, 214 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). Rather than address the inquiry under the Bail Reform Act or identify new facts bearing on that inquiry, the defendant focuses entirely on developments in the severity of the public health crisis created by COVID-19. While the Government addresses the defendant’s contentions below, no generalized facts relating to the COVID-19 crisis can have any relevance to whether the defendant poses a danger to the community (or a risk of flight). The conditions of confinement are not a statutory basis for release under the Bail Reform Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)–(g); United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 293–94 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“The Bail Reform Act address conditions of release, not conditions of detention.”).

3 The defense submission alludes to two disclosures that the Government made pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Those disclosures consisted of the following:

1. On or about February 10, 2020, [the Friend] stated to law enforcement, in sum and substance, the following: (a) [the Friend] and the defendant did not have or bring any guns to the October 4, 2019 shooting; (b) [the Friend] and the defendant did not belong and never belonged to the Grape Street Crips or any other gang; (c) the reason [the Friend] and the defendant chose to go to the party at which the shooting occurred was not because the party was gang-related; and (d) the defendant had nothing to do with the shooting.

2. The Laboratory Report of a blue hooded sweatshirt recovered from the defendant, produced as USAO_000413 - 000416, states in the “Results of Examination”: “No residues or physical effects consistent with the discharge of a firearm.”

Neither fact is new. The Government made both disclosures on February 24, 2020, and defense counsel alluded to these disclosures at the March 9 argument. (Mar. 9, 2020 Tr. 3:9–12.) In any event, neither fact undermines the Government’s case. With respect to the Friend’s statements, the Friend has also told the Government, in sum and substance, that he had no memory of anything that happened shortly after he was shot up until when he woke up at the hospital. With respect to the gun residue, the Government expects the trial evidence to show that the condition of the sweatshirt is consistent with the possibility that the defendant fired the Gun or that he picked up the Gun after it had been fired.

4 For this reason, United States v. Stephens, 15 Cr. 95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020), is distinguishable. In Stephens, “the strength of the primary evidence relied upon by the Government to demonstrate the danger the Defendant poses to the community has been undermined by new information not available to either party at the time of” the prior bail determination. Id. at *1. Here, no facts have changed since the March 9 bail argument.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 14

Page 5

B. The BOP is Taking Appropriate Steps to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 at the MCC

The Government does not dispute that the COVID-19 health crisis is serious. The

challenges posed by that crisis are not unique to the MCC, however, and the BOP is taking appropriate steps to mitigate and prevent the spread of COVID-19 at its facilities, including the MCC.

Since at least October 2012, the BOP has had a Pandemic Influenza Plan in place. See

BOP Health Management Resources, https://www.bop.gov/resources/health_care_mngmt.jsp.2. Beginning approximately two months ago, in January 2020, the BOP began to plan specifically for COVID-19 to ensure the health and safety of inmates and BOP personnel. See Federal Bureau of Prisons COVID-19 Action Plan, https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20200313_covid-19.jsp.

As part of its Phase One response to COVID-19, BOP began to study “where the infection

was occurring and best practices to mitigate transmission.” Id. In addition, BOP assembled “an agency task force” to study and coordinate its response to COVID-19, including using “subject-matter experts both internal and external to the agency including guidance and directives from the WHO, the CDC, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Vice President.” Id. On March 13, 2020, in coordination with the Department of Justice and the White House, the BOP implemented its Phase Two response “in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, acknowledging the United States will have more confirmed cases in the coming weeks and also noting that the population density of prisons creates a risk of infection and transmission for inmates and staff.” Id.

The BOP has implemented measures designed “ensure the continued effective operations

of the federal prison system and to ensure that staff remain healthy and available for duty.” Id. For example, the BOP (a) suspended social visits for 30 days (but increased inmates’ access to telephone calls); (b) suspended legal visits for 30 days (with case-by-case accommodations); (c) suspended inmates’ movement for 30 days (with case-by-case exceptions, including for medical treatment); (d) suspended official staff travel for 30 days; (e) suspended staff training for 30 days; (f) restricted contractor access to BOP facilities to only those performing essential services, such as medical treatment; (g) suspended volunteer visits for 30 days; (h) suspended tours for 30 days; and (i) generally “implement[ed] nationwide modified operations to maximize social distancing and limit group gatherings in [its] facilities.” Id.

The BOP also implemented screening protocols for both BOP staff and inmates, with staff

being subject to “enhanced screening” and inmates being subject to screening managed by its infectious disease management programs. Id. As part of the BOP’s inmate screening process, (i) “[a]ll newly-arriving BOP inmates are being screened for COVID-19 exposure risk factors and symptoms”; (ii) “[a]symptomatic inmates with exposure risk factors are quarantined”; and (iii) “[s]ymptomatic inmates with exposure risk factors are isolated and tested for COVID-19 per local health authority protocols.” Id.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 14

Page 6 The specific measures implemented at the MCC are described in a letter that the BOP submitted to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon on March 18, 2020, annexed hereto as Exhibit A. Those measures include:

• Screening of staff: All MCC staff are screened every day upon arrival by medical staff wearing personal protective equipment. Any staff person with a fever or responding in the affirmative to any question on a screening form is denied entrance.

• Suspension of new inmates: As of approximately March 24, 2020, the MCC is no longer accepting new inmates.5

• Medical staff availability: All medical staff are now available around the clock. • Isolation of at-risk population: Inmates over 55 years’ old or with certain conditions

are isolated within one unit at the MCC, with some exceptions relating to security concerns.

• Suspension of visits: Social and legal visits have been suspended. To compensate,

additional telephone minutes for social calls and legal calls have been provided to all inmates.

• Social distancing: Inmates are permitted to self-seclude in their cells to avoid contact

with others. • Cleaning and hygiene: Soap was delivered to all inmates on March 13 and again the

week of March 16. Additional soap is available for purchase and soap is provided at no cost to any inmate who cannot afford to purchase it. The MCC continues to be stocked with cleaning supplies and common areas are cleaned on a regular basis.

Doubtless, notwithstanding the measures above, the MCC will not be immune to a virus

that is projected to infect 40 to 80 percent of the overall population of the United States.6 To date, the Government is aware of a single confirmed case of COVID-19 at the MCC, and it is possible that there will be additional cases in the coming weeks and months. However, given the measures that the BOP has implemented and the inherently isolated nature of the prison environment, there is no reason to believe that the defendant is at materially greater risk from COVID-19 at the MCC than he would be if released.

5 As of the March 18 BOP letter to Judge McMahon, the MCC was still accepting inmates and was screening them pursuant to the BOP protocol. Following a confirmed case of COVID-19 at the MCC on or about March 23, 2020, the MCC stopped admitting new inmates. 6 See Transcript of March 22, 2020 Remarks of Governor Andrew Cuomo, https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/video-audio-photos-rush-transcript-governor-cuomo-calls-covid-19-pandemic-challenge-generation.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 14

Page 7

C. The Defendant Is Not Uniquely At-Risk for Contracting COVID-19 or Developing Serious Symptoms If Infected

The defendant’s application identifies no specific facts suggesting that the defendant, in particular, is at risk of contracting COVID-19 or developing serious symptoms if he does. Indeed, the thrust of the application seems to be that, given COVID-19, all prisons are unsuitable for habitation and all inmates on pretrial detention must accordingly be released. (Doc. No. 16 at 2–5 (arguing that “Prisons are petri dishes for contagious respiratory illnesses” and citing other BOP facilities, New York City jails, prisons in other parts of the United States, and foreign prisons).) The Bail Reform Act does not authorize—much less require—so drastic a remedy. Even if, for the sake of argument, conditions of confinement were a basis for release under the Bail Reform Act,7 the Court would be required to consider “the history and characteristics of the person” including “the person’s . . . physical and mental condition.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3) (emphases added). In order words, the Court would be required to consider the individualized circumstances of the defendant, rather than generalized facts about the COVID-19 crisis. The defendant is a 33-year-old man. The defendant’s submission does not suggest that the defendant has any immune system disorder or chronic illness that would put him at heightened risk for COVID-19.8 Given available public health guidance, individuals in the defendant’s demographic are at a low-risk of developing serious symptoms from COVID-19. To be clear, the Government does not minimize the risk that COVID-19 poses to everyone and understands that even people in the low-risk category can get sick and can be hospitalized. However, the mere possibility that the defendant may contract COVID-19 is not a reason to release him on bail. Even if the defendant contracted COVID-19 at some point, that alone would not be a reason to release him on bail. According to public health authorities, the vast majority of individuals who contract COVID-19 are expected to recover with mild or no symptoms. Health authorities have directed that, absent severe symptoms that require hospitalization, a person infected with COVID-19 need not and should not seek professional medical treatment. See New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (last visited Mar. 26, 2020), https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-main.page (“If you think you have COVID-

7 As discussed already, the Bail Reform Act does not permit such an inquiry. The factors set forth in § 3142(g) bear on whether “there are conditions of release that will reasonable assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community”—that is, risk of flight and dangerousness. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

8 The defense contends—without elaboration—that the defendant has encountered difficulty getting treatment for an unspecified medical condition. (Doc. No. 16 at 5 n.30.) Based on statements that the defense has made at prior court appearances, the defense may be referring to shoulder pain. (See Dec. 16, 2019 Tr. 10:6–9; Mar. 9, 2020 Tr. 6:1–21.) Shoulder pain is not a medical condition that puts a person at higher risk for COVID-19. See Centers for Disease Control, People Who are at Higher Risk, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/people-at-higher-risk.html.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 14

Page 8 19 and your illness is mild, you do not need to see your health care provider and you will not be tested. Getting tested will not change what your provider will tell you to do to get better. They will tell you to stay home so you do not get others sick.”); New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2020 Advisory #8: COVID-19 Update for New York City (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/han/advisory/2020/covid-19-03202020.pdf (“There is no reason to test asymptomatic persons or mild-to-moderately ill persons who are not hospitalized.”). If the defendant contracts COVID-19 and, like most individuals, has mild or no symptoms, the fact that he has the virus does not justify his release on bail. In sum, nothing about the defendant’s individual health suggests that he is uniquely likely to contract COVID-19 or to develop severe symptoms if he does become infected. Even if there comes a time when the defendant requires medical care that cannot be provided at the MCC, the remedy would be to provide him the medical care he needs—not to release him on bail.

D. The Defendant Is Being Afforded Reasonable Access to Counsel Under the Circumstances and His Defense Has Not Been Impaired

As described above, the BOP has restricted in-person visits at the MCC to minimize the risk that visitors, including defense counsel, will transmit COVID-19 to inmates. The defendant remains free to speak with counsel by phone, and the number of minutes allotted for legal calls has been increased. Furthermore, inmates continue to have access to the law library and to receive legal discovery.9 In short, the defendant continues to have the opportunity to communicate with his counsel about the case, consistent with the Sixth Amendment. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for May 11, 2020. However, the Court’s deputy has advised the parties by email that “It is safe to say that the May 11 trial date and briefing schedule is continued.” Given the current trajectory of COVID-19, it appears unlikely that a trial will proceed on May 11 or in the near term. Accordingly, any current limitation on defense counsel’s ability to confer with the defendant will not impair the defense’s ability to prepare for trial.

When it becomes possible to set a trial date and pretrial schedule, the Government will not object to any reasonable period of time the defense needs to make up for time lost due to measures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at the MCC. E. Temporary Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Is Not Warranted With respect to defendants already ordered detained, the Bail Reform Act provides that a judicial officer “may, by subsequent order, permit the temporary release of the person, in the custody of a United States marshal or another appropriate person, to the extent that the judicial 9 The Government’s most recent Rule 16 production was made to the defense on March 9, 2020. On March 12, defense counsel advised the Government that it had mailed a copy of the materials to the MCC, but that the defendant had not yet received the material. At the defense’s request, the Government will mail a full set of all discovery to the defendant at the MCC; due to COVID-19, the MCC is no longer accepting direct delivery of discovery from the Government.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 14

Page 9 officer determines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for another compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). In the alternative to release on bail, the defendant seeks temporary release under this provision, arguing that release is necessary to protect him from COVID-19 and to allow him to assist in his own defense. Certain extreme medical emergencies may present “compelling reason[s]” that would warrant release. For example, in United States v. Scarpa, 815 F. Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), the court ordered the temporary release of a defendant who was terminally ill with AIDS, was expected to die before trial, and whose condition could not be managed by prison medical facilities. Even under those circumstances, the defendant was not simply permitted to go home: the court required the defendant to be confined to a hospital under 24-hour guard of the United States Marshals, to be reimbursed by the defendant’s family. Id. Here, as discussed, the defendant has identified no specific facts suggesting that COVID-19 poses an immediate and severe risk to him. Instead, he has relied solely on generalized facts that apply to all inmates. That does not satisfy the showing required under § 3142(i). United States v. Acosta, 19 Cr. 848 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020), Doc. No. 14 (denying bail application for inmate detained in MCC that “reli[ed] mainly on a form letter proffering general reasons to release inmates because of the spread of the COVID-19 virus”). Accepting generic COVID-19 arguments, such as the one advanced here, would “logically result in the wholesale release of inmates.” Id. Indeed, since the inception of COVID-19, judges in this District have consistently rejected applications for release from individuals with more specific health concerns than the defendant. See United States v. Bradley, 19 Cr. 632 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020), Doc. No. 25 (denying bail application for inmate detained in MCC on controlled substances and firearm charges who had recently experienced a stroke and had high blood pressure); United States v. Rivera, 20 Cr. 6 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (denying bail application for inmate detained in MCC on controlled substance charge who had a childhood history of asthma); United States v. White, 19 Cr. 536 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (denying bail application for inmate detained at Valhalla on controlled substance and Hobbs Act charges with history of whooping cough); United States v. Alvarez, 19 Cr. 622 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020), Doc. No. 17 (denying bail application for inmate detained in MCC on controlled substances charges who had been diagnosed with Hepatitis B).10

Temporary release is also not necessary to allow the defendant to prepare in his defense. As discussed, the trial is very unlikely to proceed on May 11, and the Government will not oppose

10 By way of contrast, in United States v. Perez, the court ordered the temporary release of a defendant with “serious progressive lung disease and other significant health issues” that put him “at a substantially heightened risk of dangerous complications should be contract COVID-19 as compared to most other individuals.” 19 Cr. 297 (PAE), 2020 WL 1329225, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (emphases added).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 14

Page 10 an appropriate adjournment of the trial date (and any pretrial deadlines) to allow defense counsel sufficient time to prepare and confer with the defendant. IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s fourth application for release under the Bail Reform Act should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York by: /s/ Jun Xiang Jun Xiang Michael D. Longyear Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2289 / -2223 CC Defense Counsel (By ECF)

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 14

Page 11

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 14

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 14

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 14

individualized inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. McFarland or Ms. Pratesi. Finally, as the nationwide, regional, and local guidance is subject to evolve on a frequent basis, so further updates can be provided when substantial changes to this information occur.

Sincerely,

�leWarden MCCNewYork

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 17 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : -v.- : 1:19-cr-867 (PAC) : SHAKEIL CHANDLER : OPINION & ORDER

: Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------------- x HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:

Defendant Shakeil Chandler moves to be released on bail on the grounds that restrictions

at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”) in response to the ongoing COVID-19

pandemic have interfered with his ability to confer with counsel and prepare for his upcoming

criminal trial. The Government opposes the motion. The Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Chandler was arrested on November 20, 2019 for being a felon in possession of a firearm

and brought before Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who denied bail.1 (Dkt. 1, at 1, 4; Dkt. 4, at

1). Chandler was indicted on the one count under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 2; he

was arraigned before this Court, and pled not guilty. (Dkt. 6; Minute Entry dated Dec. 9, 2019).

This Court recognized the merits of defense counsel’s arguments regarding the lapse of time

since Chandler’s last offense and his conduct since his release but denied the Defendant’s

renewed application for bail on December 16, 2019. (Tr., Dkt. 9, at 22:3–22).

1 Chandler has a prior conviction for a manslaughter in the first degree that occurred in 2006, when Chandler was 19 years old. (Tr., Dkt. 9, at 3:12–18, 16:3–8). Chandler had been out of prison for five years before his recent arrest, the first two and a half of which were spent on supervised release. (Id. at 3:19–25).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 6

2

Then, in a letter dated March 4, 2020, Chandler again sought a bail hearing after the

MCC had been shut down continuously since February 27, preventing Chandler from meeting

with his lawyer. (Dkt. 15, at 1, 2). This first set of restrictions came as the BOP sought, and

ultimately recovered, a loaded gun that was smuggled into an MCC housing unit. (Dkt. 17, at 3).

Chandler’s attorney wrote at the time that the Government had recently turned over material

pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) that, in the words of the defense, “directly

undercut[s] the prosecution’s theory of the case and provide[s] evidence that Mr. Chandler did

not possess a firearm”—the single criminal count with which the Defendant is charged. (Id. at

2). At that point, his trial was scheduled for April 27. (Id. at 2). At a conference on March 9

this Court denied the bail application but, in recognition of Chandler’s right to prepare his

defense, adjourned the trial to May 11. (Minute Entry dated Mar. 9, 2020; Dkt. 17, at 3).

Defense counsel writes that restrictions imposed at the MCC due to the ongoing COVID-

19 crisis have only increased the difficulty of preparing for Chandler’s trial. 2 The Bureau of

Prisons on March 13 announced a 30-day suspension of all visits to federal correctional facilities,

including the MCC. (Dkt. 16, at 8). Since then, Chandler’s counsel has been entirely unable to

communicate with him in person or by video conference, and had only one phone call with

Chandler that lasted less than five minutes and was not private. (Id.; Dkt. 18, at 3). The situation

seems unlikely to improve in the near future. Chandler maintains his innocence. He moves for

temporary pre-trial release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), which permits a court to order the

2 Chandler’s counsel reports that, “since March 13, the MCC has issued hand soap to inmates in Mr. Chandler’s housing unit only two times,” that the facility “does not currently have the ability to test for coronavirus and there are no general screening protocols in place,” and that “no one, including correction officers, is allowed to have hand sanitizer because it is alcohol based.” (Dkt. 16, at 5–6). On March 23, an inmate at the MCC tested positive for COVID-19, and one of the facility’s housing units is under quarantine. (Dkt. 18, at 1).

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 6

3

temporary release of a detainee when “necessary for preparation of the person’s defense or for

another compelling reason.”

The hazards of a pandemic are immediate and dire, and still the rights of criminal

defendants who are subject to the weight of federal power are always a special concern of the

judiciary. “The right to consult with legal counsel about being released on bond, entering a plea,

negotiating and accepting a plea agreement, going to trial, testifying at trial, locating trial

witnesses, and other decisions confronting the detained suspect, whose innocence is presumed, is

a right inextricably linked to the legitimacy of our criminal justice system.” Fed. Defs. of N.Y. v.

Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 19-1778, 2020 WL 1320886, at *11 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2020). See

also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987) (“In our society liberty is the norm, and

detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”).

Several other courts in this District have in past weeks faced defendants situated similarly

to Chandler and concluded that “the unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous nature of the

COVID-19 pandemic has become apparent.” United States v. Stephens, 15-cr-95 (AJN), 2020

WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020). See also United States v. Hudson, No. 19-cr-496

(CM), minute entry (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (McMahon, CJ); United States v. Perez, No. 19

Cr. 297 (PAE), amended order at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020). But see United States v. Steward,

20cr0052 (DLC), 2020 WL 1468005, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020). This case is not one

where the defendant simply makes a generalized argument that the fact of the ongoing pandemic

itself is enough to justify temporary release. See, e.g., United States v. Hamilton, 19-CR-54-01

(NGG), 2020 WL 1323036, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2020).

The Government distinguishes Judge Nathan’s opinion in Stephens, in which the court

found that the information relied upon by the Government to establish dangerousness under 18

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 6

4

U.S.C. § 3142(g) at the prior bail hearing had since “been undermined by new information.”

Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155, at *1. The Government argues that no such change has occurred

in Chandler’s case. The citation is misleading, however, because the Stephens court was explicit

that even if it had “conclude[d] that changed circumstances did not compel reconsideration

[under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)]” the “separate statutory ground” provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)

would nevertheless and on its own “require [the defendant’s] release.” Id. at *2. This Court

agrees with the Stephens court that 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) provides a sufficient and independent

ground for granting temporary release. The language of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) that the court “may

. . . permit” the detainee’s temporary release “to the extent that the judicial officer determines

such release to be necessary” underscores the discretionary nature of relief under the subsection.

The Court is also unconvinced by the Government’s argument that, because Chandler’s

trial is likely to be further delayed due to COVID-19, time preparing for his defense can simply

be made up later. (Dkt. 17, at 8). The extraordinary burdens imposed by the coronavirus

pandemic, in conjunction with Chandler’s right to prepare for his defense, certainly constitute a

“compelling reason” that permits this Court to order the temporary release of Chandler pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). See Fed. Defs. of N.Y., 2020 WL 1320886, at *5; Stephens, 2020 WL

1295155, at *3 (“[T]he obstacles the current public health crisis poses to the preparation of the

Defendant’s defense constitute a compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i).”). As another

case from this District observed in recent days, this Order pertains to Chandler’s particular

circumstances, and “should not be construed as a determination by this Court that pretrial

detention is unsafe or otherwise inappropriate as a general matter or in any other specific case.”

Perez, amended order at 1.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 6

5

Chandler may be released on his own signature and to his home in Brooklyn with his

mother only after all the following conditions are met:

(1) The Defendant must execute a $50,000 bond co-signed by two Financially

Responsible Persons.

(2) Chandler shall be placed under 24-hour home incarceration to be enforced by location

monitoring technology to be determined by Pretrial Services. The Defendant may

only leave his residence for necessary medical services. All other leave from the

residence must be submitted through defense counsel for the court’s approval.

(3) The Defendant is permitted to self-install the monitoring equipment under the

direction and instruction of Pretrial Services.

(4) The Defendant shall not be released until all conditions are met, including the

availability of location monitoring equipment.

(5) This Order shall be effective for a period not to exceed 60 days, at which time the

need for continued release under the “compelling reason” that release was ordered

shall be revisited by the Court.

(6) Within two weeks of his release, Chandler must purchase or secure an iPhone with

Facetime capabilities for remote / virtual monitoring by Pretrial Services. Counsel

for indigent defendants may seek client service funds from the Federal Defenders for

this purpose.

(7) When home visits are scheduled by Pretrial Services, to the best of his ability,

Chandler shall comply with Pretrial Services’ requests to remove all cohabitants of

the residence prior to the visit.

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 6

6

(8) The Defendant must report and disclose to Pretrial Services when any cohabitant of

the residence, including himself, may be symptomatic of any illness.

CONCLUSION

Chandler’s motion for temporary pretrial release is granted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) for

the compelling reason and under the conditions laid out in this Order. The Court may revoke

bail for any non-compliance with those same conditions.

Dated: New York, New York March 31, 2020

SO ORDERED ________________________ PAUL A. CROTTY United States District Judge

Case 1:19-cr-00867-PAC Document 19 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 6