RSBM;BBM.
I respectfully disagree with the bolded statements. Since the PH, the court has made available to the press copies of all the documents they requested, including verbatim transcripts of the proceedings. I assume the press was charged for transcripts and perhaps for other extraordinary costs. What they haven't done is post absolutely everything on their website where individuals like us can see them at no cost. I'd love it if they did that, and I hope they eventually do, but I assume there are staffing and technical issues to overcome.
As much as I believe in open records and transparent government decision making, I also believe in the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. The latter is a right enshrined in the constitution: the right of the press to access public information is not (see
In re People v. Sir Mario Owens). The inherent tension between pre-trial publicity and the right to a fair trial has long been recognized (see
Sheppard v. Maxwell). In my view, there are sound reasons that courts tend to keep some documents from the public until after the trial, and limit access to the proceedings themselves: the press demonstrates a propensity to sensationalize, creating the kind of "circus atmosphere" the SCOTUS has criticized and that is incompatible with the seriousness of proceedings in which a person's life and liberty may be taken (see, e.g., Nancy Grace). These proceedings should not be grist for the entertainment industry or the disinformation blogosphere, IMO.
Judge M was operating under a brand new rule, COCrP 55.1, which is a major step toward transparency. However, it recognizes that openness must be balanced against other substantial interests and requires that judges who close records to protect those interests articulate them in a written order and specify the date the order will expire, as Judge M did at the outset of the proceedings.
The people of Chafee County, who have lost a valued community member and whose sense of their own safety has been violated, have been deprived of the opportunity to consider the just resolution of the matter recommended by their elected officials, largely because an AA containing unfairly prejudicial and inadmissible evidence was released un-redacted. That's what is shameful IMO.