In Criminal Trial Stalled Over Coronavirus Concerns, Parties Willing to Move Forward … Carefully
"The court's jury assembly room will not permit sufficient distance between jurors," federal prosecutors wrote. "Once in the courtroom, the jurors could theoretically be spread out while hearing evidence and arguments; however, that could result in some jurors being able to see the witnesses and evidence better than others."
April 07, 2020 at 08:26 PM
4 minute read
Federal prosecutors trying a criminal case against a Russian man charged with hacking into Bay Area tech companies have told a federal judge in San Francisco they're prepared to resume a criminal trial that's been delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, even while acknowledging it was "unlikely" enough jurors will be available.
Lawyers with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California filed court papers Tuesday indicating that they are prepared to resume trial April 13 in the case of Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Nikulin, a Russian man accused of hacking into computers belonging to LinkedIn, Dropbox and Formspring.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup pressed pause on the proceedings in the trial last month after a potential witness in the case came into contact with someone displaying symptoms of a COVID-19 infection. Alsup issued a further continuance of the trial just as "shelter in place" orders went into effect around the Bay Area in mid-March. The judge, noting that jeopardy had attached in Nikulin's trial, said at a March 18 hearing that there was a "fighting chance" that a fair trial could be preserved with the sitting jury of 12 jurors and four alternates, and ordered the parties to hold a teleconference Thursday to discuss the feasibility of resuming trial next week. After the government filing hit the docket Alsup changed Thursday's telephonic status conference into an in-person hearing, signaling that the judge could be contemplating making a substantive ruling like declaring a mistrial that would require Nikulin to be present.
Adam Gasner, who, along with co-counsel Valery Nechay, represents Nikulin, said Tuesday that his client wishes to proceed with the trial. "After over three years in pretrial detention and as his long-awaited jury trial has already started, Mr. Nikulin's wish is to move forward without any further delay," Gasner said.
The government's Tuesday filing, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michelle Kane and Katherine Wawrzyniak, acknowledged the difficulty of trying the case with the current jury. Alsup previously polled jurors prior to the continuance and found that at least two had health conditions that put them at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and two had employment obligations. Seven of the 16 jurors didn't respond to the judge's questions.
Tuesday evening, the judge issued a notice saying that at least 10 jurors and three alternates had indicated after being contacted by the court clerk that they may be "willing and able to serve" if the trial were to restart April 13. If the trial were to restart in May or after the "shelter in place" orders are lifted, 10 jurors and four alternates had indicated the same.
Federal prosecutors noted Tuesday that there were at least 30 people in the courtroom, including lawyers, jurors, court personnel and witnesses, during the first two days of testimony in the trial and that it would be necessary to configure the courtroom to maintain six feet of distance between trial participants going forward. "The attorneys need to stay close to their respective teams in order to be able to confer," they wrote. "The court's jury assembly room will not permit sufficient distance between jurors. Once in the courtroom, the jurors could theoretically be spread out while hearing evidence and arguments; however, that could result in some jurors being able to see the witnesses and evidence better than others."
Read more:
In Stalled Criminal Trial, a Call for COVID-19 Tests to Protect a Defendant and His Lawyers
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Will Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
US to pay nearly $116M to settle lawsuits over rampant sexual abuse at California women's prison
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250