[Apologies in advance for the length of the reply, just getting all my thoughts out on this, so it may not seem to have a logical order]
The ongoing Motions and arguments over the jail visitation, Means wanting Lori to have a cellphone so they can communicate with is a really interesting facet of this case to my geeky-mind. In the recent filing (24 pages because of numerous attached Exhibits) I was reminded of a couple things that I think are of note:
-Deputies who work at the Detention Center (in previous affidavits) admit that visitors, including attorneys meeting their clients, do not need to have an appointment when coming to the Detention Center. I found this interesting because they keep (IMHO) belaboring the point that Means would show up unannounced asking to meet with his client and, it seems to be implied, that not giving them notice somehow affects the circumstances in which they’re able to meet. (I don’t see how it does at all, unless he’s turned away completely which he’s alleged has happened before)
-in one of his first meetings with Lori, when their phone call was accidentally recorded, the jail then turned off recording for 24 hour period for both phones in the Public Visitor Room. Everyone seemed surprised when again phone calls were found to have been recorded and only after that, and talking to the Telmate provider for help in deleting the recorded calls, did they disable recording for 365 DAYS.
In late March, when he showed up to meet with Lori, it was the jail staff who said they’d check if the phones in that Room are recorded - they did not say they were asked first by Means - that they were going to check this all on their own, just because of the current visitation restrictions. They were not first prompted by Means to check for recording capabilities on those phones. Their phone calls that day were not recorded. He visited again THE NEXT DAY and this was when the phone calls were mistakenly recorded (they had only disabled it for a period of 24 hours!). The Deputies claimed he never asked for the recording to be turned off, and that they would’ve heard the audio disclaimer on the phone before talking. Should a Defense attorney need to mention upon every visitation that the phones are not being recorded if that is the main way the Jail is providing for attorneys to meet with their clients? There is already an expectation that there communication, since it is privileged, will not be recorded....so do they need to ask before every phone call to disable recording? Shouldn’t the Jail want to do that so that they don’t get into any of this legal headache over calls mistakenly recorded? It seems to me as if they were saying that “Means never asked for it to be turned off, and he would’ve heard the recording disclaimer on the phone before they spoke so this shouldn’t be a surprise, and because of those two factors the calls were mistakenly recorded, ooops we will delete them now”
-Rob Wood of the State tries to argue that “no one else has asked for a special cell phone & Lori shouldn’t get special treatment”, which might be true, but I am reminded that this Detention Center is small, and for all we know there’s only a handful of women there at the moment. In 2017, for instance, they had 238 female inmates.....for the entire year, so I don’t think the argument is as strong as “out of the hundreds of other inmates currently there, not a single one has asked through their attorney for a cell phone for communication”....
I am also recalling that the jail typically has such a low population from their County that they routinely house inmates from other Counties in the state. I just think, if the jail has so few inmates, it’s a bit of a weaker argument to say “no one else has asked for this so therefore Means and his client Lori should get the same as everyone else” if the “everyone else” is just a small number of people.
-The State could certainly be correct when they’re saying “The State is aware of no other inmate that has filed a motion requesting a cell phone due to the required use of Telmate”.....that is a highly specific statement. That statement could be true and you could still have other inmates who have asked for some sort of remedy or change in visitation procedures because of the COVID restrictions....both of those can be true at the same time. That statement does not reflect if anyone else has asked for similar changes so that attorneys could meet with their client, for all we know other attorneys have asked for some help from the Court because of these restrictions.....a defense attorney could argue/Motion for the same thing but cite a different reason and the argument by the State would still be true. I don’t think, because of the specificity in their statement, that “well no one else has asked for special privileges”.
The State, IMO spent more time arguing that Means was just continuing to argue things that have already been decided & ruled upon, IMHO rather than precisely countering his arguments about possible Constitutional rights being violated. Wood says Means is trying to “relitigate facts previously decided”.
I did not think once that the Jail or Court to have a cell phone for their communication but I also do think some of what Means has argued are some factors that are legitimately affecting his ability to meet with his client. I won’t repeat myself too much, as I’ve posted previously here in this thread about numerous cases across the country that have amended jail procedures in the wake of this pandemic and how Courts have recognized this negatively impacting a defendant, their ability to prepare for a trial, and in some instances have (according to some Courts) started to infringe on their Constitutional rights. In possibly one of his only Motions so far that actually does have some legal precedence both in other Courts in Idaho, as well as in other states, I think the current rules for visitation are or could further hinder his ability to prepare for trial. It doesn’t seem very helpful to the Defense if you’re told “here’s a laptop you can use, no it doesn’t have any internet connection or ability to retrieve/access anything online or to display any documents you have on your computer”, that doesn’t seem that helpful to the Defense.