ORDER TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE FILED: JULY 20 2012 This is an order to seal
all documents from Public Inspection. This order is to remain sealed until further order of the Court.
ORDER AND RULINGS REGARDING EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND DECORUM Dated July 20, 2012
This has come to the Court pursuant to KUSA-9News’ petitioners, Associated Press Photos’ and The Denver Post. They want media coverage of the advisement proceeding. The Court ruled media coverage is permitted to sill, video and audio coverage only. Video and audio footage went to KUSA-9News. Still photography went to Associated Press Photos. The media is solely responsible to an open and impartial distribution of the footage. The following are restrictions in all areas within the Justice Centre: No electronic devices No interviews No photography, transmitting or recording within the courtrooms and the jury room Ensure a clear passage is made No public or media is to attempt to interview anyone including the defendant No putting up of tents, tables or similar items on the Public Grounds Everyone has to rise and be seated when told Must remain quiet Heightened security measures must be taken Restrictions to parking If you violate anything you will be held in Contempt of Court.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) Dated 23rd July 2012
This Motion is brought to the Court via the Defence. Nature of the case demonstrates the need for Court intervention to guide the conduct of counsel to avoid lowering the level of advocacy in this case.
Lawyers do fight with each other and sometimes those arguments become acrimonious. This diverts time, energy and resources. If the lawyers were fighting in public the media would focus on the fighting and not on the case.
So basically no lawyer, law firm or legal representative is allowed to talk to the media/public. No law enforcement officers are allowed to speak to the media/public. The police are also not allowed to act in a manner that creates deliberate exposure of the defendant i.e photographs or video, or organise an interview with the media and the defendant. Court personnel aren’t to disclose to unauthorised persons any information.
ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE OF JULY 30, 2012 HEARING (D-7) Dated 24th July 2012 This Motion is brought to the Court via KUSA-9News’, The Denver Post’s and Colorado Public Radio (“Petitioners”). The Petitioners are seeking audio, video and photography. The Court received another Objection to Expanded Media Coverage and Request for Hearing (D-7) filed for July 23, 2012 by the Defendant. No word from the People at this stage. The Court previously denied the Defendant’s Objection to Expanded Media Coverage and Request for Hearing (D-4) file on July 20, 2012. The Court denied that objection. After considering the Defendant’s Objection, the Court denied the Petitioner’s Request.
STANDING DECORUM ORDER (C-3) Dated 25th July 2012
This document basically sets out what you can and cannot do in the Justice Centre: Restrictions within the Justice Centre All electronic devices are banned No interviews shall be conducted within the Courthouse No photography, transmitting or recording within the Applicable Areas Media and public can take pictures of people as they come and go from the Courthouse, except for Jurors. Always leave a clear passage Members of the public or media are allow to conduct interviews of any party within the Courthouse Do not put up tents, tables etc.
Restrictions to all Applicable Areas All electronic devices are banned No interviews shall be conducted The front row on each side of the Operating Courtroom is to remain vacant Public will be admitted to the designated media portion of the courtroom if there is room Need to sit and rise when told Be quiet Heightened security measures will be taken Restrictions to parking If you violate anything you will be held in Contempt of Court.
Additional provisions will be made regarding photos or video of victims, defendant, counsel, families, witnesses and jurors as it becomes necessary.
AMENDED ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D10) DATED 25 JULY 2012 This amended order is brought to the Court by the Defendant. The motion is granted by the Court on 25th July 2012. This order is to commence immediately.
PEOPLE’S MOTION NO. 1 – MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO RECORDS UNDATED This is brought to the Court by the People. The People state: The Defendant has been arrested for numerous counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder and other offenses relating to events occurring in the morning of July 20 2012. The case has a lot of media interest. The Defendant attended University of Colorado. As of July 12, 2012 the Defendant was in the process of voluntarily withdrawing from the university. On July 21, 2012 a representative of the University contact the DA. The representative advised that members of the media had started to inquire the University regarding the case and requesting release of the Defendant’s records, subject to Colorado Open Records Act. The People believe that the media wants access to electronic documents such as e-mail and similar. The People have not had access to these records but they believe that disclosing these documents to the media would not be good. So the People asks the Court to prohibit the University from releasing these documents. Or alternatively the documents be submitted to the court for in camera review. A representative from the University has advised the DA’s office that they do not object to this.
ORDER RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS BY UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO PURSUANT TO COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT – PEOPLES MOTION NO. 1 (P-2)
DATED 23 JULY 2012
The Court orders the University is not allowed to disclose any information about the Defendant pursuant to CORA. If you want information from the University, then subpoena them.
MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF ALL DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL D-(011) DATED 26 JULY 2012 James Holmes through is counsel moves the Court to order the government to show all discovery regarding the package sent my Mr Holmes to Dr Lynne Fenton. Mr Holmes wants a hearing in this regard for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions for misconduct, Mr Holmes wants all discovery produced, including a list of all the people involved in the seizure and names of law enforcement agents, including federal agents who tested this package for explosives, involved in the chain of custody of the package, all information regarding the seizure, names of the people responsible for the breach, all notes and reports regarding the package, all information as to how the media knew about it.
PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION D-11 FILED JULY 27, 2012 The People object to the Motion. They will provide the discovery on their possession. They denied that they were responsible for the leak to the media. The People say that they only issued one warrant, not two warrants as per NBCNEWS.com’s story. The also advise that the packaged was never opened. They say the media made the whole story up as they believe no one in their court leaked any information whatsoever. The People say that if there were video cameras in the mailroom they will provide such evidence if it comes to hand. People say that the whole story is inaccurate and as such do not know how to respond to the Motion D-11
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF ALL DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL (D-11) DATED JULY 27, 2012 The Court grants the hearing.
MEDIA’S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (WITH REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING)
DATED JULY 27, 2012 This Motion is brought before the Court by numerous media outlets. They wish the files in this case be unsealed.
ORDER RE: MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (C4)
DATED JULY 27, 2012 The Court orders the Movants’(media) request to set a hearing to address matters on July 30 2012.
AMENDED ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2A)
DATED 13 AUGUST 2012
The Court notes there are certain subjects more likely to have prejudicial effect on a proceeding. They include character, credibility, reputation or criminal record or a party or suspect, performance of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or a test, opinion as to guilt or innocence and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
ORDER RE MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET)(“SUPPRESSION ORDER”)(C-4C) DATED AUGUST 13 2012 Court finds that the University of Colorado is not to talk. The Register of Actions is to be opened. Affidavits, subpoenas, arrest warrants etc are to be suppressed. The Court will release an addition 34 documents. The Court orders that the file remains suppressed and the package is to be held under seal and held with the Clerk of the Court.
MOTION FOR ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF CRIME SCENE (001) (D-1) FILE 7.20.2012 James Holmes wants his counsel granted access to the crime scene. He states his family has requested counsel represent him. Counsel has not been able to meet with Mr Holmes.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR ACCESS TO AND PRESERVATION OF CRIME SCENE (001) (D-1) FILED 7.23.2012 At the advisement hearing (23/7) the Defendant included Mr Holmes’ place of residence as well as the theatre and surrounding areas. AS the People and Defense came to an agreement at that hearing whereas the People will give the Defense 24 hours notice to have reasonable access to both crime scenes, the Court finds the Defendant’s Motion moot.
MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRAIL PUBLICITY (002) FILED 7.20.2012 James Holmes moves the Court to order limiting information given out by attorneys, their agents, employees and all enforcement agencies and investigators, employees, court personnel regarding the case.
ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMIT PRE-TRAIL PUBLICITY (002) FILED 7.23.2012 The Court orders that no lawyers, law enforcement agencies or court personnel not to disclose any information or talk about this matter.
MOTION TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE (003) (D3) FILED 7.20.2012 The Defense asks for the following: All recordings produced or seized All police notes. Do not destroy these notes All scientific reports etc All photos All correspondence All biological samples and physical evidence All records
OBJECTION TO EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING (004) FILED 7.20.2012 The Defense objects to media coverage for the July 23, 2012 advisement hearing. Mr Holmes also wants a court order requiring 30 days notice in advance of any hearing for such request to be made.
NOTICE OF INVOCATION OF ALL STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND REVOCATION OF ANY AND ALL PREVIOUSLY GIVEN WAIVERS AND PRIVILEGES (005 (D5) FILED 7.23.2012 James Holmes invokes privileges including medical and psychiatric, school, employment etc, requests the Court order no member of the DA, law enforcement etc obtain confidential information, he does not authorise anyone to waive his rights on his behalf, exercises his right to silence, does not want to be interviewed or contacted unless his attorney is present, the DA is not allowed to contact him with his counsel’s approval, He also revokes all previously stated or signed waivers of confidentiality. Does not consent to releasing of his records.
MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE (006) (D-6) FILED 23 JULY 2012 James Holmes wants a confidential expert during scientific testing, not to perform any further testing until this matter is resolved.
INTERIM ORDER TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE (006) (D-6) FILED 23 JULY 2012
The People are required to respond within 20 days.
PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION D-6: MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EVIDENCE
FILED AUGUST 8 2012
In response the People is asking the Court to deny the request. They basically say that testing the evidence is in its own way destructive in nature.
OBJECTION TO EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING (D-007) FILED 23 JULY 2012
James Holmes objects to requests by media for expanded media coverage for July 30 2012 pre-trial hearing as it will jeopardise Mr Holmes’ constitutional rights to due process.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE KUSA-9NEWS FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by KUSA-9News for expanded media coverage for audio and video.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE THE DENVER POST FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by The Denver Post for expanded media coverage for still photography.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE COLORADO PUBLIC RADIO FILED 23 JULY 2012 This is a standard form filled out by Colorado Public Radio for expanded media coverage for audio.
MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-010) FILED JULY 25 2010 James Holmes moves the Court to issue an Order pursuant to his constitutional rights regarding pretrial publicity. It seems the government violated that order by disseminating information to the media regarding his communications with xxxxxxxxxx (this means it was blackened out).
ORDER RE MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER LIMITING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-10) DATED 25 JULY 2012 Defendant’s motion is granted.
MOTION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE D-(012) DATED 25 JULY 2012 James Holmes moves the Court to allow him to sit at counsel table. Keeping him in the jury box gives the impression that Mr Holmes’ express threats or exhibits dangerous behaviour. If people in the court desire to harm Mr Holmes, then the Court needs to address the conduct of those particular people, not Mr Holmes.
ORDER RE MOTION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE D-(012) DATED 27 JULY 2012 This motion is granted.
MOTION TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE DATED 20 JULY 2012 The People state that release of records, affidavit and return of service inventory sheets could disclose information resulting in destruction, disposal or secreting evidence and tampering with identified and unidentified witnesses, jeopardizing the investigation. Therefore they want these documents to be sealed.
SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER TO SEAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AFFIDAVITS, ORDERS AND CASE FILE (P1) DATED 31 JULY 2012 The Court orders the DA to give a copy of the Court’s current Order (attached) to judicial officer and court staff with future search warrants and affidavits so they are aware of the order.
PEOPLE’S MOTION (P-7) MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMITED PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) FILED 27 JULY 2012 The people are confused with the Court’s July 23, 2012 “Order Re Motion to Limit Pre-Trial Publicity (D-2). They list discrepancies with various references to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.
RESPONSE TO PEOPLE’S MOTION (P-7) MOTION TO CLARIFY COURT ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMITED PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY (D-2) FILED 30 JULY 2012 The Defense responds to the People’s response. The majority of these requisitions as such is in relation to inaccurate reports filed by the media reaching the jury pool in the case. If you really want to know the “ins” and “outs” of the motion and responses you will need to read the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.6-3.8.
PEOPLE’S MOTION (P-8) MOTION FOR HEARING PRIOR TO UNSEALING OF COMPLAINT, NAMES OF VICTIMS, ADDRESSES, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS, ITEMS, OR PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE FILED JULY 27, 2012 The People ask that before the court unseals any portion of the case that a hearing be conducted to enable all parties to be heard. This includes complaint, names and addresses of victims and witnesses.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE KUSA-9NEWS FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by KUSA-9News for audio and video.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE THE DENVER POST FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by The Denver Post for photos.
REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOS FILED 20 JULY 2012 This is a standard form regarding request for expanded media coverage by The Denver Post for photos.
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (C2) FILED 23 JULY 2012 This document spells out the filing, identification and labelling protocol for all pleadings in this case. People = P-1 (1 being the number of motions filed) Defendant = D-1 Court = C-1
PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (P-9) FILED 6 AUGUST 2012 The People respond to the media and they advise that they did not object to the unsealing of the Complaint and Information. They do not want the witness details released. The Defense does not want any portion of the case unsealed.
As a result the People agree with the Defense and don't want any of the case unsealed.
The People realised that the case will be unsealed at some point.
If the Court wants to unseal anything then they ask they just unseal the Register of Actions and most motions and orders except People's 5 "Preliminary Bench Brief Relating to Defendant's Allegations that Certain Materials are Protected by Privilege".
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE (INCLUDING DOCKET) (P-9) FILED 9 AUGUST 2012 Mr Holmes’ objects to the unsealing of any additional documents presently contained in the case file. He also objects to the online posting of pleadings filed in the "Cases of Interest" section of the state judicial branch website.
There are many reasons why he is objecting to unsealing of this case and his lawyers refer to many points of law. If you need to know the full details of it, have a look at the motion. If you need help please let me know and I will try to help.
MEDIA PETITIONERS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT FILE
FILED 8 AUGUST 2012
Basically the media wants the file unsealed so they have a story to report, as we know. They again make many points of law and if you are really interested please take the time to read the motion.
One point I would like to make regarding this documents. The media say that "Holmes has also be a ******** (blackened out) at the University of Colorado".
(ORIGINAL AND CORRECTED) MOTION BY MEDIA PETITIONERS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S ORDERS REGARDING PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY. DATED 3 AUGUST AND 6 AUGUST 2012 – I could not find the exact correction This Motion is made pursuant to: Order re Motion to Limit Pre-Trial Publicity, Amended Order re Motion for Compliance with Order Limiting Pre-Trial Publicity, the imposition of potential sanction of contempt of court for any violation of the Rules, the prohibition on “extra-judicial statements” only apply to the DA’s office and criminal “Law Enforcement Agencies involved in this case”. Amended order now includes Aurora Police Department, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Dept, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, FBI and ATF. Other non-criminal law enforcement agencies are citing the Court’s Orders not to comment on the case. In seeking out information on actions by non-law government, that body is now citing the Court Order and not speaking to the media i.e Aurora History Museum refuses to issue a statement regarding plans of a Memorial Park across the street from the Century 21 (16?) Movie Theatre. The media has asked for information regarding how many rural metro ambulances responded to the shooting, where they went, inspection of the reports held by the Aurora Fire Department for the movie theatre dating back weeks and months before July 20, seeking records showing when off-duty police officers have worked at the movie theatre in the two months prior to July 20. The media say these records should be made available as they are not within the ambit of the Court’s Orders as none of these agencies will be participating in the prosecution of the defendant.
PEOPLE’S MOTION TO CONTINUE (P-11) FILED AUGUST 15, 2012
The People wish to continue hearing dated August 16, 2012. They do not have all discovery as yet. They have received 2,500 pages of discovery, 52 DVD’s and CD’s but they are awaiting more information. Information requested in Subpoena Duces Tecum to the University is necessary for privilege. The Defendant’s attorney has advised they do not object to the Motion to Continue. They both request the Court rule on the Motion today so they can call off the witnesses scheduled for that date.
ORDER RE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO CONTINUE (P-11) DATED AUGUST 15, 2012
The Court has agreed to let the hearing for August 16 be moved to August 23, 2012.
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALLOW CONFIDENTIAL DEFENSE EXPERTS TO BE PRESENT FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTING OR EVIDENCE DATED AUGUST 15, 2012 The Defense wants experts to be present for scientific testing and the Court finds that it has no statutory authority to order the People to allow Defendant a confidential expert be present during the People’s scientific testing. The People must comply with the disclosure requirements regarding destructive or consumptive testing. The People are to give the Defendant 48 hours’ notice before conducting testing.
While the Defendant has the right at trial to confront any state experts or examiners involved in the testing, the Defendant does not have the right to a confidential expert present..
PEOPLE’S MOTION 12 – REQUEST TO RELEASE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF VICTIMS TO THE COLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE.
FILED AUGUST 16, 2012
COVA wants the names and contact information of the victims to enable them to distribute funds as soon as possible.
ORDER REGARDING PEOPLE’S MOTION 12 – REQUEST TO RELEASE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF VICTIMS TO THE COLORADO ORGANIZATION FOR VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE.
DATED AUGUST 16, 2012
As this motion is unopposed, the Court grants the Motion, with amendments. The DA can give COVA the victim’s details on once the victims have given their prior consent. COVA must keep this information confidential
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR MR HOLMES’ EDUCATIONAL RECORDS D-(014) FILED AUGUST 8, 2012 James Holmes requests that the subpoena on his educational records should be quashed as it is unreasonable and oppressive, as it seeks confidential and/or privileged materials.
PEOPLE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR MR HOLMES’ EDUCATIONAL RECORDS D-(014) FILED AUGUST 14, 2012 The People argue that the Defendant’s educational records are relevant to the investigation of these crimes, his planning and motive and asks the Court to deny the Defendant’s motion.
ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND IN CAMERA REVIEW (C-7) DATED AUGUST 16, 2012 The Court orders no in camera review shall be conducted until after Defendant files a written response and the parties present oral argument. This needs to be filed by Monday August 20 2012 and oral argument to be held on August 23, 2012. Meanwhile the University documents are sealed.
PEOPLE’S MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 21, 2012
The DA learned that at least one news agency request the release of records for the autopsy reports and photographs of the deceased and they would like the Court to rule on this matter.
SUPPLEMENT TO PEOPLE’S MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012
The news agency requesting the release of the records have now withdrawn their request.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PROSECUTOR’S MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012
James Holmes replies based on the People’s Supplement, the matter now appears moot.
ORDER RE PEOPLE’S MOTION NO. P-16 MOTION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY CORONER DATED AUGUST 22, 2012 In the People’s Motion they state that at least one media outlet has requested the release of records regarding autopsy reports and photographs of the deceased. The court grants a hearing on the matter scheduled for August 23, 2012.