Case 1:20-cr-00078-AT Document 100 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`SHALIK JENKINS,
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC #: __________________
`DATE FILED: _4/14/2020____
`
`20 Cr. 78-4 (AT)
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant, Shalik Jenkins, is detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”),
`see Def. Letter at 1, ECF No. 91, awaiting trial on one count of racketeering conspiracy in
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and one count of narcotics conspiracy alleging distribution of
`cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
`§ 841(b)(1)(A), and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), see Indictment, ECF No.
`1. Now before the Court is Defendant’s request that he be: (1) transferred from federal to state
`custody, specifically to Groveland Correctional Facility (“Groveland”), Def. Letter at 1, and
`(2) provided one 45-minute telephone call per week with his attorney at a prearranged time, Def.
`Reply at 5, ECF No. 96. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part
`and DENIED in part.
`
`On February 13, 2020, Defendant was transferred into the custody of the Federal Bureau of
`Prisons (“BOP”) pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, in order to answer the
`charges in this case. Def. Letter at 1; see ECF No. 42. At the time of his transfer, Defendant was
`serving a 12-month sentence at Groveland for a parole violation in a New York State case, and had
`completed two days of the 90-day ALT90 program at Groveland, which, upon completion, would
`likely result in the reduction of his parole violation sentence. Def. Letter at 1. Defendant now
`moves for transfer back to Groveland in order to complete the ALT90 program. Id. at 1–2. He
`requests, in the alternative, that the Court direct the BOP and the MCC to provide weekly, pre-
`scheduled phone calls with counsel. Id. at 2–3; see also Def. Reply at 3–5.
`
`At this time, Defendant’s request for transfer to Groveland is DENIED. Cf. Ponzi v.
`Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260 (1922) (“One accused of crime . . . may not complain if one
`sovereignty waives its strict right to exclusive custody of him for vindication of its laws in order
`that the other may also subject him to conviction of crime against it.”).
`
`However, Defendant’s request for a prearranged telephone call with counsel, once a week,
`is different. The Court is deeply concerned that Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights may be
`undermined during his pretrial detention at the MCC. In-person attorney-client visits at the MCC
`have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, see ECF No. 66 at 9, and telephone calls
`have now become a lesser substitute. The Government has not articulated, with any specificity,
`why the basic provision of a predictable legal call on a weekly basis is beyond the MCC’s
`capacity. See generally Gov’t Letter, ECF No. 95.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cr-00078-AT Document 100 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`The COVID-19 pandemic has now been a reality for weeks, and although the Court
`appreciates the challenges facing the BOP, the present arrangement cannot continue indefinitely
`for those in custody. Defense counsel reports being able to speak with his client only in 15-minute
`slots, and at haphazard times. See Def. Letter at 5; Def. Reply at 5. That is not adequate to satisfy
`Defendant’s right to counsel, especially as this pandemic stretches into additional weeks or,
`possibly, months. Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175, 185 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[I]n the context of the
`right to counsel, unreasonable interference with the accused person’s ability to consult counsel is
`itself an impairment of the right.”); cf. Federal Defenders of New York v. Bureau of Prisons, No.
`19-1778, 2020 WL 1320086, at *11 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2020) (“The right to consult with legal
`counsel about being released on bond, entering a plea, negotiating and accepting a plea agreement,
`going to trial, testifying at trial, locating trial witnesses, and other decisions confronting the
`detained suspect, whose innocence is presumed, is a right inextricably linked to the legitimacy of
`our criminal justice system.”); United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 12, ECF No. 13 at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
`2, 2020) (“The Court also orders the MCC to provide [the defendant] with at least one legal call
`per week for the next three weeks . . . .”).
`
`Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that the BOP and the MCC
`are directed to provide Defendant with a prearranged legal call with counsel of 45 minutes, once a
`week, until further order of the Court.
`
`The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF Nos. 85 and 91.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 14, 2020
` New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`