More From This User
Related Docuements
DeChristopher Trial Decorum Order
The decorum orders sets rules for courtroom behavior. Neither the public nor ...
From Jesse Fruhwirth
1DISTRICT COURTARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADOCourt Address:Arapahoe County Justice Center7325 south Potomac StreetCentennial, CO 80112
▲
COURT USE ONLY ▲
Plaintiff(s):
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADOv.
Defendant(s):AARON DUANE THOMPSON
.Case No. 07CR1483Division: 401
DECORUM
ORDER
ORDER
RE:
REQUEST
FOR
EXPANDED
MEDIA
COVERAGE
ORDER
EXTENDING
ORDER
OF
MAY
17,
2007,
ON
PRE-TRIAL
PUBLICITY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the hearing on July 20, 2009, on theRequest for Expanded Media Coverage
(hereinafter “EMC”)
. The Court has reviewed therespective pleadings filed on issues involving EMC by the Defendant, by the People and by theDenver Media G
roup (hereinafter “DMG”). The Court has also reviewed
applicable authority,
the Court’s file and has heard argument by all counsel, and oral statements by
Mr. Carlos Illescason behalf of the Denver Post, and Ms. Catherine Tsai of the Associated Press. The Court is fullyadvised.This case has garnered significant media attention since the police were called to theThompson residence in November 2005. This attention has been the subject of litigation inregards to the ability to select an impartial jury that has not been exposed to and/or prejudiced bythe media reports. This Court previously denied requests for Expanded Media Coverage on May17, 2007, and granted requests made on January 8, 2008, and May 21, 2008,
for the Defendant’s
arraignment.The Defendant was indicted on May 16, 2007, on sixty counts, including child abuseresulting in death, conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, false reporting,eighteen counts of child abuse and multiple counts of second degree assault. There are eightchildren named as victims in those counts. It is anticipated that six of those children (albeit twoof them are no longer minors) will testify at trial. In previous hearings testimony was adducedabout the negative impact this case has had on their lives, and about the trauma the children willsuffer as a result of having to testify in open court about the relevant events. Further, the Peopleassert that the mere presence of cameras and even any audio recording device in the courtroom islikely to inhibit the minor children
’
s ability to testify.
2The Defendant asserts his concerns about receiving a fair trial. The intense mediacoverage led the Defendant to express concerns about the ability to seat a venire that has notbeen tainted by the coverage, and argues that audio and video taping of the trial would turn thiscase from one of appropriate public interest to a cause celebre.DMG seeks expanded media coverage in this case for the trial of the Defendantscheduled to commence on August 7, 2009, after four days of jury selection. DMG asserts thatthere is strong public interest in this case and that only through video and audio taping the trialcan the public be educated about our system of justice and the inner workings of a trial. DMGasserts that video and audio taping the trial is the only mechanism for assuring a complete andaccurate portrayal of the trial. Finally, DMG assures the Court that the mechanisms in place inCanon 3A(8)(e), limiting the ways in which the trial is covered, ensure that the trial could notturn into a media production.Canon 3A(8)(b) of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct provides the standard forauthorizing extended media coverage. In determining whether expanded media coverage shouldbe permitted, a judge shall consider the following factors:1.
Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that expanded media coverage would interferewith the rights of the parties to a fair trial.2.
Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that expanded media coverage would undulydetract from the solemnity, decorum, and dignity of the Court: and3.
Whether expanded media coverage would create adverse effects that would be greaterthan those caused by traditional media coverage.It is axiomatic that the rights of the defendant to a fair trial are the highest priority of theCou
rt: “No right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial.”
Press-Enterprise Co.V. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984). The mere presence of a camera in a courtroom,however, does not
per se
violate a defendant’s Due Process rights.
Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S.560 (1981). Existing authority makes it clear that, while the Court must take great care to grant
public access to criminal proceedings, the issue of “public access” is not identical to EMC.
Simply put, there is no constitutional right to use of cameras or audio-transmitting devices. The
First Amendment provides for a right to attend trial, “rather than a license allowing cameras or
tape-
recorders into the courthouse….”
United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1280 (11
th
Cir.1985).
The rights of the press to access a criminal proceeding are “no greater than those of anyother member of the public.”
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 609 (1978).While the Court has been given discretionary authority to allow EMC, there is nopresumption in favor of EMC. People v. Weighard, 727 P.2d 383 (Colo.App. 1986). Instead,this Court must balance the impact of such coverage not only against those important rights heldby a criminal defendant, but also against the rights of the victims in this case. Only after all of these respective rights and concerns have been addressed does this Court ultimately consider its
own interests in the case, which involve the decorum and dignity of the Court’s proceedings.
While media coverage in courtroom has become nearly commonplace, there are unique facts andcircumstances in this case which require careful scrutiny.
3The Court is not convinced that there is an overriding purpose that justifies the admission of cameras in the courtroom in this case. Any such purpose is equally served (as it has been fordecades before Canon 3A(8) was adopted) by media accurately reporting the occurrences of theday during any given proceeding. The legitimate concerns that Defendant has raised about hisability to receive a fair trial resonate with this Court. This Court concludes that there is somepotential that certain portions of these proceedings may be unfairly sensationalized and thatinaccurate information will be provided to members of the public. This increases the risk of interfering with a fair trial and therefore justifies placing restrictions on expanded mediacoverage. Additionally, the adverse effects of EMC would in all likelihood be greater on thevictims in this case than the adverse effects caused by traditional media coverage.After consideration of all the varied interests in this case, the Court believes that theoverriding interests of conducting a fair trial, and ensuring the decorum of court proceedingsrequire that expanded media coverage be permitted in a limited fashion only. Findinginsufficient reason to allow the EMC in full, the Court will permit EMC by video, stillphotography and audio taping only during the opening statements, closing arguments, the takingof the verdict and any sentencing that may occur as a result of any verdicts of guilty.This Court will require strict adherence to the parameters outlined in Canon 3A(8) of theColorado Code of Judicial Conduct. As a reminder to the media, the Court highlights thefollowing limitations of expanded media coverage:c) Limitations on Expanded Media Coverage
.
Notwithstanding this authorization to conduct limitedexpanded media coverage, there shall be no:(III)
Audio recording or “zoom”
close-up photography of bench conferences;(IV) Audio recording or close-up photography of communications between counsel and client orco-counsel;(V) Expanded media coverage of in camera hearings;(VI) Close-up photography of members of the jury.Thus this Order only authorizes expanded media coverage for the opening statements, closingarguments, return of the verdict and any sentencing that might occur of the defendant, with the fullcompliance of all applicable restrictions.d)
Authority to Impose Restrictions on Expanded Media Coverage
.
A judge may restrict or limitexpanded media coverage as may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the court or to protect theparties, witnesses, or jurors. A judge may terminate or suspend expanded media coverage at anytime upon making findings of fact that: (1) rules established under this Canon or additional rulesimposed by the judge have been violated; or (2) substantial rights of individual participants orrights to a fair trial will be prejudiced by such coverage if it is allowed to continue.Thus the expanded media coverage granted in part for portions of the trial is subject to revocationby this Court.
This Court
’
s
Conditions for Coverage.
Expanded media coverage shall be conducted only under thefollowing conditions. The Court maintains final approval of all arrangements:
Equipment Limitations.
of 00
20090729_CourtCoverage
438 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | (2 Ratings) |
| Upload Date: | 07/28/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment