Court questions financial responsibility for transporting Cantwell to rally lawsuit | 12 august
“Courts have regularly ordered United States marshals to execute a brief ad testificandum – and to pay for its execution – when a prisoner is indigent,” the plaintiffs’ response reads.
However, given the “significant costs and safety concerns associated with bringing Mr. Cantwell to Charlottesville for the entire relatively lengthy trial,” counsel for the plaintiffs recommended that Cantwell be brought into town only. for his own testimony, which they say should last one to two days at most.
When they were not testifying, counsel for the plaintiffs suggested that Cantwell could participate by video conference, as previously discussed and arranged with the court.
Defendants Jason Kessler, Nathan Damigo and Identity Evropa have also argued that it is at the discretion of the court whether or not to issue a brief ad testificandum for Cantwell. Further, the trio of defendants agreed with the plaintiffs that it is also within the power of the court to order Cantwell’s transfer from his current institution to Charlottesville for trial, even if there are budgetary or other inherent issues. to such an order.
However, the defendants disagreed with the plaintiffs’ suggestion that Cantwell only needs to be transported for the days he is testifying.
“If Cantwell is brough [sic] at trial, then each party must have an equal opportunity for a full examination of Mr. Cantwell before the jury, ”the response read. “In the defendants’ view, the Court would be abusing its discretion if it allowed the plaintiffs to call Cantwell in their chief case while restricting other parties to cross while Cantwell is in the courtroom.”