I agree that it's common to release the AA after the arraignment, even after CRCP Rule 55.1.
What I don't know is how many of those AAs included clearly inadmissible and significantly prejudicial evidence, like refusal to take a lie detector test, comparative assessments of the victim's character and the defendant's, the defendant's non-criminal sexual history, and irrelevant business dealings? IMO, Dan May and serious prosecutors like him would never have let those items get into the AA. They know exactly what you point out: Stanley has handed the defense a huge stick with which to beat the prosecution.
And it was so unnecessary.
I remain disappointed with Judge M's failure to redact the AA on his own, to protect against the venue change and fair trial issues that now loom large (in my mind, at least). He had the clear authority to do so. Here's the pertinent language from
Rule 55.1:
(4) Orders Entered on Court’s Own Motion. The court may, on its own motion, make a court record or other filing inaccessible to the public or order that only a redacted copy of it be accessible to the public. If the court does so, it must provide notice to the parties and the public via the publicly available Register of Actions and must also comply with paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of this rule. The clerk shall make the subject court record or filing inaccessible to the public pending the court’s final decision, except that, in its discretion, the court may order a redacted version of the court record or filing accessible to the public during that timeframe. In its discretion, the court may hold a hearing in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this rule before ordering on its own motion a court record or any part of a court record inaccessible to the public.
His order would still need to identify at least one substantial interest (local public interest in seeing justice done: protecting the right to a fair trial) served by allowing only a redacted document to be accessible to the public. He must find that no less restrictive means exists to protect any substantial interests identified (as you say, that's all too clear). He must conclude that any substantial interests identified override the presumptive public access to an unredacted court record (well, duh!). And he must specify a date or event (conclusion of the trial) when the order will expire.
Given Judge M's significant, explicit concerns with the length and contents of the AA, I am truly puzzled why he didn't exercise his authority to redact it under Rule 55.1, CRCP.
Same goes for Judge L's release of exhibits, I agree.
