Okay, this is *** matter of state versus Logan clegg. Uh, we're scheduled for an arraignment and disposition conference in Mr Clegg's case this morning. I did see there was an arraignment, uh, *** waiver of arraignment filed on behalf of Mr Clegg. Um, there's also in that assertion of Mr Clegg's right to *** speedy trial. And uh, and I do know there's *** motion regarding unsealing of certain affidavits. So I want to have counsel identify themselves for the record and then we can take up those issues. Good morning Daniel Schakowsky for the state. Good morning. Your honor, josh spicer for the state. Good morning. Your honor Caroline smith with the public defender. Good morning. Your honor. Attorney Maya Dominguez also with public defender and Mr Clegg appears here in court. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you all. Uh, so I guess where I want to start is by addressing the issue of timing of this case for trial. I'm happy to do that this morning or if you want to confer and submit *** proposed schedule, that's fine too. If you want us to look at setting dates today, we could do that. Your honor. I think if we set *** trial date today we can confer and do *** schedule an agreed upon schedule. That makes sense. How long of *** trial do you expect this would be While parking it right now. We anticipate around 8-10 days. 10 days Tony Smith. I don't know if you think that that's is that I would add *** few days to that. So maybe maybe make it more in the 10-15 solid two weeks for sure. How soon do you want to try this and this may not be *** subjective agreement, but I don't know. Um let me ask, let me ask the defense, how soon can you be ready to try the case? Uh We were going to ask for october november. I understand that the court is completely booked and scheduling out after august, so that's why we were looking there. I think ah october is rough for me but um is there *** preference for november over december? November over september rather I have *** first degree in november. And Belknap, currently scheduled is september too soon. I have *** trial in august but I do not think september will be too soon. I think that not the first week or so approach. Yeah, absolutely. We'll be with you After conferring with counsel uh in light of the defendant's assertion of his right of speedy trial. Um the jury selection will be on July 10 and the trial will will begin uh on July 11. And councils will submit proposals regarding deadlines for for for scheduling of other things in terms of that. The other pending issue before the court today is the state's motion to unseal the affidavits. I don't know if council want to say anything beyond what they've already put in their pleadings. Uh whether they're comfortable resting on their pleadings your honor. We largely rest on what we submitted. It's the state's position that we no longer have *** basis to keep these documents under seal and defer to the court's judgment on that. And I understand the defense's objection is not that that that there's any, you know, unfair prejudice to the defendant from anything becoming public because much of it has already been made public, but just just the the, you know, Well, I don't need to stay. I read the defense's objection. Don't you want to say anything further uh or make further argument on that? Um, Excuse me, I guess number one is it deals with uh documents that are not *** part of this docket ID file from what I understand about how search warrants are filed. Um, So to that extent, I don't think it should be addressed under this dock. It'd file number two, my issue with the warrant affidavit in this file. I think I set forth number three the prejudice um, certainly I would have objected, but there has been release of information because of the fugitive from justice charge that again, not under this dock. It um, but there is certainly *** level of prejudice to the extent that the court is, it's not *** pleading. It's not *** response to anything that affidavit sits there for no particular purpose. Under the court rules in this docket. It certainly has *** purpose, just like search warrants have *** purpose, but their investigatory tools and then they are *** summary that gets review from the court um to make sure that the state have, the police, the state have met their burden to be able to utilize these tools. They are not part of the adversary process which is this docket this dock, it started with the filing of the complaints and at that time the arrest warrant with the affidavit and accompanying materials were filed with it. And as I pointed out under the rule, the rule provides for the return, but it doesn't provide for those other documents to be in this docket. So to the extent that other dockets or cases are involved, I think I reserve the right to argue when *** motion is filed under those cases, but right now under this dock it'd case, there is only the arrest warrant affidavit and there is no authority to have that affidavit in the file. And like I say uh this is essentially *** one sided summary of the state's best case or law enforcement's best case. It is very similar to the grand jury that all of the procedures before filed with this docket were done without any input by the defendant without any role of the defendant. And like grand juries. I think as this is the investigative case, I think that it should remain under seal because although the public has the right to know about this case this case and what they know should be those things that are part of the adversarial process that are challenged in this case and then the trial, I guess what I'm trying to distinguish is how is this any different from *** gerstein affidavit or an arrest warrant in most criminal cases that are, that are included as part of the court's file, that that the court makes *** probable cause determination. Uh early on in me that that, you know, if you were to look at almost any other criminal cases filed in Merrimack County and probably statewide, there is *** gerstein affidavit or an arrest warrant in the file that that how is how is this any different? Number one, the gerstein affidavit requires some sort of ruling in this docket and it is provided for in the rules. Uh number two, I don't know that anybody has challenged the rest after I've been doing this for years and at some point I looked at it, something hit me sideways and I said, why is this happening this? This has no role here in this case, but but doesn't the fact that *** judicial officer looked at at um *** warrant application and made *** determination that there was probable cause and either approved *** warrant or didn't approve *** warrant? Isn't that something that the public has *** right to know if it is challenged without *** doubt, the public has the right to know. But again, we are talking about an investigatory tool that brings the defendant to trial and that's where the information should come out. The judge's role in that is *** review to make sure that the police have done what they're supposed to do to um establish probable cause for what it is that they're seeking here in this docket. This is the adversarial proceeding. That summary has no role in just sitting there and saying, hey, this is our case. Spicer attorney to ask if you want to be heard further on on that issue. No, your honor. I don't I'll give that some consideration and take that under advisement anything further this morning. two weeks. I just to give us *** deadline. Two weeks. Whatever whatever you all think is reasonable. So um that gets us want to want me to say for to make it easier. Just say no honor. Before I give you the end of that week, the 17th of february. Give *** little bit more time to do that. So, so you're not not pressed and you can confer pretty much my product if you reach an agreement setting deadlines, I'm going to approve that agreement. So we don't have any issue with that. Anything else. Nothing for *** great thank you. All very much. All right sir. Thank you. Thank you. Oh my I have the science