Case 1:16-cr-02363-WJ Document 86 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Clerk's Minutes Before the Honorable Chief Judge William P. Johnson Case No.: CR 16-2362 WJ and CR16-2363, WJ Date: April 9, 2018 Parties: USA v. Lonnie Jackson and USA v. Diamond Coleman Courtroom Clerk: R. Garcia Court Reporter: M. Loughran Interpreter: N/A Type of Proceeding: Status Conference Place of Court: Albuquerque Total time in Court: 58 minutes Evidentiary Hearing: No Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Norman Cairns, David Walsh, Jim Tierney, and Kim Brawley Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): John F. Robbenhaar and Aric Elsenheimer Proceedings: 9:05 Court in session; counsel enter appearances; defendant’s presence. The Court notes cases recently reassigned to him from Judge Armijo and set a status conference to review the case; notes there are a couple of issue to address re the release of exhibits and a Government Notice re Discovery. The Court asks defense counsel if the theory of Homophily is the basis for Judge Armijo’s Order re discovery Mr. Elsenheimer addresses the Court; doesn’t believe Homophily is basis for Judge Armijo’s order; would described it as an affinity bias. Court conducts colloquy with Mr. Elsenheimer re Judge Armijo’s Order, discovery issues over what Government needs to produce, and defendants’ theory/basis for selective enforcement claim. Case 1:16-cr-02363-WJ Document 86 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 3 9:31 Mr. Cairns responds noting why the Government does not believe there is selective enforcement. 9:39 The Court advises it will strike Docs. 80 and 86; directs Government to file a motion to reconsider Judge Armijo’s Order; defendants can respond with their substantive claims; gives Government 3 weeks to file motion; 3 weeks for defendants’ response; 1 week for Government’s reply. 9:42 Mr. Walsh addresses the Court; wishes to make 2 points; one, Judge Armijo did not find any evidence of racial intent; and second, the Government intends to argue it has complied with Judge Armijo’s Order. 9:44 Mr. Robbenhaar addresses Court; asks this Court to review the motion hearing transcript before Judge Armijo; addresses Judge Armijo’s concerns that lead to her Order for discovery. 9:48 Mr. Elsenheimer addresses issue re exhibits to be redacted and released to the public; notes parties have agreed re the redaction/release of the exhibits, with exception of Exhibit R; no objection to the Government’s redactions to Exhibit R with the exception of the money amount spent on the ATF surge operation, and information re public housing provided to informants. Mr. Elsenheimer notes no objections to redactions and the release of exhibits G, L, M, and O. Regarding exhibits H, I, J, K, and N; these are reports from other cases; Judge Armijo ordered counsel in those cases to advise the Court re any objections, but believes nothing has been received by the Court, save one response; will contact those attorneys and contact the Court’s CRD re their position re their release of exhibits. 9:52 Mr. Tierney responds; notes information re housing provided by Housing and Development will allow access to rental information of informants. The Court sustains the Government’s objection and will allow redaction of Housing and Development info. Mr. Tierney argues that release of costs of the ATF surge operation will produce negative publicity that the Government will be unable to respond to and may influence potential jurors; would not object to release after cases are concluded. Mr. Elsenheimer responds in opposition to redaction of amounts; notes public disclosure of costs are basic to democracy. The Court notes publicity in the past re this case and what jurors may or may not remember can be covered in voir dire, if it comes to that. The Court will allow totals; that is summary paragraph on SE 012; will allow Government to redact the Case 1:16-cr-02363-WJ Document 86 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 3 charts and the rest of the information until conclusion, because the cases are still pending. Mr. Tierney notes he is not opposed to Mr. Elsenheimer’s plan to contact other counsel in related cases re the release of exhibits. The Court advises Mr. Elsenheimer to allow other counsel a week to 10 days to respond re the release of exhibits; if there is no objection exhibits can be released. Mr. Robbenhaar clarifies that the Court will redact the two charts on SE 012 and SE 013, but will allow initial paragraph on SE 012; Count notes that is correct. Mr. Tierney advises the Government will release to the reporter once redactions are done. The Court will prepare briefing order. 10:03 Court in recess.