State’s Motion for Release of Avi Hack Video DENIED

State’s Motion for Release of Avi Hack Video DENIED

Avi Hack is happy that the Federal Court did not order the release of his videotape to the State of Connecticut in order to show to the jury in the Goat’s criminal trial. Why did Avi file an objection to the release of his videotape? Why would Avi Hack not want to help the State obtain a conviction of the Goat who raped him as a teenager? Because Avi Hack has suffered extreme and permanent mental damage after years of exposure to the deranged Goat

ORDER: The [362] motion to intervene and unseal is DENIED. The State of Connecticut filed the [362] motion to intervene and unseal the videotape of the deposition of Aviad Hack in order to further its interest in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses against Daniel Greer. Jury selection has commenced in the criminal case against Daniel Greer and evidence is expected to begin on or about September 17, 2019. ECF No. 362-1 at 3. In light of the upcoming criminal trial, the Court is issuing a short order to expedite review of this motion. The Court assumes familiarity with the history of this case and the videotape at issue. In particular, familiarity is assumed with this Court’s [277] order and the Second Circuit’s [302] & [303] stay of that order pending appeal.

As an initial matter, to be clear as to the nature of the State’s request, the Court notes that the videotape is not in the possession of the Court and is not under seal in the usual sense of that phrase. Rather, the videotape is in the possession of counsel, and the [277] order concerned the release of the video to the public. In any case, for the reasons set forth in the [277] order and in addition because the State has articulated a compelling need for the video — one even more compelling than the right of a member of the public to access video evidence that was aired in a public trial –, the Court believes that the law requires disclosure of the videotape to the State. Nonetheless, because the Second Circuit has stayed the Court’s order compelling release of the videotape in the earlier matter, and because the issue is currently sub judice at the Second Circuit, the Court does not believe it has authority to order the release of the videotape at this time. The Court notes, however, that the State may appeal this order. MasterCard Intern. Inc. v. Visa Intern. Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to intervene.”); U.S. v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. Appx. 13, 14 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing “appeals from orders denying [the defendant’s motions] to unseal documents”). On appeal, the State may make the Court of Appeals aware of its need for the videotape — and the urgency of that need –, which would allow the Court of Appeals to determine whether or not to grant relief from its current stay.

Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/6/2019. (Ram, Megha)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

UA-83941504-1