Opinion
CR20-196RAJ
12-09-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS JONES, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO PROCEED WITH BOND VIOLATION HEARING BY VIDEO CONFERENCING
The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
THE COURT has considered the unopposed motion to proceed with a video conferenced bond violation hearing, along with all the records and files in this case and the General Orders currently in effect.
THE COURT FINDS that the circumstances are as set forth in the motion, and that a video conferenced bond violation hearing may take place as soon as practical because further delays in this case would cause “serious harm to the interests of justice, ” see General Order No. 04-20 (3/30/20), and General Order 13-21 (9/23/2021) for the reasons set forth in the motion. Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS that the parties may proceed with a bond violation hearing by video conference, consistent with current procedures established by this Court, and directs the parties to consult with one another and the Court to schedule such a hearing at a mutually acceptable date and time.
THE COURT also makes the following specific findings:
1. The Judicial Conference of the United States must find that the coronavirus emergency will materially affect the functioning of the federal courts generally or a particular court. CARES Act,
§ 15002(b)(2)(A). It has done so. See “Judiciary Authorizes Video/Audio Access During COVID-19 Pandemic, ” Administrative Office of the United States Courts (published March 31, 2020) (available at https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/03/31/judiciary-authorizes-videoaudio-access-during-covid-19-pandemic). See also General Order 13-21 (9/23/2021), extending the original order.
2. The defendant must consent. CARES Act, § 15002(b)(4); see also GO 04-20. Mr. Jones consents by his agreement to this filing.
3. For all practical purposes, the hearing must take place by videoconference, not telephone conference. Theoretically, a bond violation hearing could be done by telephone conference if “video teleconferencing is not reasonably available.” CARES Act, § 15002(b)(2)(A). A videoconference hearing is reasonably available in this case.