{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "1:21-cr-02949-MV Document 30802 Filed 02/06/23 Page 15 of 36",
    "date": "February 6, 2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "line by line in a way that is not possible through a screen. The fact that the interview room will be unavailable when the Aspen courtroom is in use is also unacceptable because the courtroom has been, and will be, in frequent use, just as it was when the parties in this case met all day for the Daubert hearing and pretrial conference on February 4. The Court's calendar is also constantly shifting, meaning that the defense team will have little to no ability to confidently predict when they will be able to meet with Mr. Robertson. The proposal involving the Santa Fe County Detention Center fares no better. The government's language is tellingly equivocal. First, it states that \"the Santa Fe jail is potentially willing to amend their policy that currently bars in-person attorney visits in response to this Court's concerns.\" Doc. 298 at 1 (emphasis added). Later, the government writes that the jail is willing to allow in-person meetings, but that it will \"work to accommodate in-person visits between Robertson and his attorneys.\" Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Rather than inspire confidence, the language of government's motion reflects the high level of uncertainty that our jails have operated with over the last year. The truth remains that the Santa Fe County Detention Center, like all jails, can still go into a full and indefinite lockdown at any time due to the continued spread of COVID-19 (and potentially the virus's recent and more infectious variants). The Court also does not want to put the jail or the defense team at risk of COVID-19 because the jail feels compelled to deviate from what it believes are its best safety practices. Neither of the government's proposals are adequate to provide Mr. Robertson the consistent and predictable in-person contact with his defense attorneys that he needs. Finally, the Court will not grant the requested stay pending appeal, as it noted in its earlier release order. Doc. 300. First, the government has failed to cite or apply the legal standard for such a stay. See D.N.M. Local R. Crim. P. 47.7 (\"A motion, response or reply must cite authority in support of legal positions advanced.\"). Second, the Court does not agree that the government",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "line by line in a way that is not possible through a screen. The fact that the interview room will be unavailable when the Aspen courtroom is in use is also unacceptable because the courtroom has been, and will be, in frequent use, just as it was when the parties in this case met all day for the Daubert hearing and pretrial conference on February 4. The Court's calendar is also constantly shifting, meaning that the defense team will have little to no ability to confidently predict when they will be able to meet with Mr. Robertson. The proposal involving the Santa Fe County Detention Center fares no better. The government's language is tellingly equivocal. First, it states that \"the Santa Fe jail is potentially willing to amend their policy that currently bars in-person attorney visits in response to this Court's concerns.\" Doc. 298 at 1 (emphasis added). Later, the government writes that the jail is willing to allow in-person meetings, but that it will \"work to accommodate in-person visits between Robertson and his attorneys.\" Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Rather than inspire confidence, the language of government's motion reflects the high level of uncertainty that our jails have operated with over the last year. The truth remains that the Santa Fe County Detention Center, like all jails, can still go into a full and indefinite lockdown at any time due to the continued spread of COVID-19 (and potentially the virus's recent and more infectious variants). The Court also does not want to put the jail or the defense team at risk of COVID-19 because the jail feels compelled to deviate from what it believes are its best safety practices. Neither of the government's proposals are adequate to provide Mr. Robertson the consistent and predictable in-person contact with his defense attorneys that he needs. Finally, the Court will not grant the requested stay pending appeal, as it noted in its earlier release order. Doc. 300. First, the government has failed to cite or apply the legal standard for such a stay. See D.N.M. Local R. Crim. P. 47.7 (\"A motion, response or reply must cite authority in support of legal positions advanced.\"). Second, the Court does not agree that the government",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001305",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Robertson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Santa Fe County Detention Center",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Aspen",
      "Santa Fe"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 4",
      "February 6, 2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:21-cr-02949-MV",
      "Doc. 298",
      "Doc. 300",
      "D.N.M. Local R. Crim. P. 47.7",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001305"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Mr. Robertson, discussing issues related to COVID-19 and in-person meetings between Robertson and his attorneys."
}