When I first heard about sealing the PCA, I thought it was to limit general public knowledge in order to secure a conviction (i.e. tainted jury pool). However the more I learn about public records, consider the charge against RA, and listen to officials, I’m convinced it’s because there is another person involved. Sealing the record is within the court’s right given the circumstances outlined below, as discussed in a podcast aired 11.2.22 (I don’t know if I’m allowed to name).
Indiana Rules of Court
Rules on Access to Court Records
Effective January 1, 2022
Indiana Rules on Access to Court Records
Rule 1: Scope and Purposes.
(A) Pursuant to the inherent authority of the Indiana Supreme Court and pursuant to the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, this rule governs public access to, and confidentiality of, Court Records. This rule applies to everyone who creates a Court Record as defined in Rule 3(A). Except as otherwise provided by this rule, access to Court Records shall be governed by the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.
Rule 4: General Access Rule.
(A) A Court Record is accessible to the public except as provided in Rule 5.
Rule 5: Records Excluded From Public Access.
(A)
Court Records That Shall Be Excluded From Public Access In Entirety. The following shall be excluded from Public Access and no notice of exclusion from Public Access is required:
(1) Entire cases where all Court Records are declared confidential by statute or other court rule;
(2) Entire cases where all Court Records are sealed in accordance with the Access to Public Records Act;
(3) Entire cases where all Court Records are excluded from Public Access by specific Court order entered in accordance with Rule 6;
Rule 6: Excluding Other Court Records From Public Access.
(A) In extraordinary circumstances, a Court Record that otherwise would be publicly accessible may be excluded from Public Access by a Court having jurisdiction over the record. A verified written request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record may be made by any person affected by the release of the Court Record. The request shall demonstrate that:
(1) The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access;
(2) Access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons or the general public; or
(3) A substantial prejudicial effect to on-going proceedings cannot be avoided without prohibiting Public Access.
When this request is made, the request and the Court Record will be rendered confidential for a reasonable period of time until the Court rules on the request.
Additionally, regarding a public hearing:
(C) Public Hearing.
(1) A Court may deny a request to prohibit Public Access without a hearing.
(2) If the Court does not initially deny the request, it shall post advance public notice of the hearing consistent with the notice requirements found in the Access to Public Records Act.
(3) Following public notice, the Court shall hold a hearing on the request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record.
(D) Written Order. Following a hearing, a Court may grant a request to prohibit Public Access by a written order that:
(1) States the reasons for granting the request;
(2) Finds the requestor has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that any one or more of the requirements of Rule 6(A) have been satisfied;
(3) Balances the Public Access interests served by this rule and the grounds demonstrated by the requestor; and
(4) Uses the least restrictive means and duration when prohibiting access.
IMO, there are extraordinary circumstances that cannot be revealed because the investigation is ongoing. This arrest had to be made, but does not complete the story of what happened that fateful day.
www.fbi.gov
fox59.com
