United States v. Moreno

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHAN F. MORENO, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 30, 2023

6:22-po-00487-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2023)

Opinion

6:22-po-00487-HBK

01-30-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHAN F. MORENO, Defendant.

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR REMOTE APPEARANCE (DOC. NO. 12)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's request to appear remotely for his change of plea hearing scheduled for February 8, 2023 at 1:00 PM. (Doc. No. 12). In support, Defendant explains he lives in the Los Banos area, is a student, and works. (Id.). Defendant explains he would experience “substantial hardship in making arrangements to return for an in-person appearance in Yosemite.” (Id.).

Under Rule 43, with the defendant's written consent and the court's permission, a defendant may appear by video teleconference for a misdemeanor offense at the arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(2). General Order No. 614, which authorized the use of videoconference technology in certain criminal proceedings, was extended by General Order No. 656, but affords discretion to each individual judge to determine all aspects of how to conduct proceedings in her courtroom, including whether or not to continue the use of videoconference technology in criminal proceedings. General Order No. 656 (“each individual judge has full authority to determine all aspects of any and all proceedings in his or her assigned courtroom, as that judge deems appropriate in his or her sole discretion[.]”).

This Court, within its discretion, has a preference to forego the use of video teleconferences for criminal proceedings because criminal proceedings require a certain solemnity, and the physical presence of all parties contributes to the fairness, integrity and public function of the proceeding. United States v. Ramos-Gonzales, 857 F.3d 727, 732 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2017). Further, to the extent the Court is permitting a remote appearance, the Court is requiring the defendant to appear remotely from the closest federal court. While the Court is sympathetic to Defendant's concerns, the Court finds neither the distance to be so excessive nor the fact that Defendant may have to take time off work sufficient cause to warrant a remote appearance.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant's request for a remote appearance for his change of plea hearing (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED