Thanks for letting me hear your side of the story.
I still maintain the other established news media outlets are not resorting to public performances and public bashing of the judge in favor of waiting for their case to move through the courts. I trust their judgment and experience more than that of Derek's.
Bottom line, my hope is to see justice served for the evil people who conspired carried out and covered up the execution of the Rhoden family and Hanna Gilley. They are the victims here, not Derek. I don't support his agenda to sway the jury into voting to acquit GW4. JMO, that's what he's doing with is public performances and misleading "journalism".
This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it as well. I don't watch a lot of trials, but I can't recall a case in recent memory when a reporter was allowed to rise, shouting, in the courtroom, to make inflammatory and false accusations against the judge. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if someone can provide me with an example of a reporter engaging in that behavior in a US courtroom. TIA.
It would also be helpful if someone could explain how this behavior helps secure justice for the surviving friends and family of the victims who were so brutally slaughtered by the Wagner family.
ETA: I'd also be grateful to anyone who can provide me with a link to a valid source that verifies that the news media will not be able to broadcast the testimony of Jake and Angela. Otherwise its a rumor, right?
If AW and JW opt out, then it will be the same as if RJN opted out, or any of the other witnesses who opted out. We won't know until the day they are to be on the witness stand. I think that's what SVGuardian is actually wanting to ensure, that they cannot opt out, at least from audio. Both the prosecution and defense wanted the opt out, and the judge granted it. I posted the info upthread.
Although the reporter from SVGuardian is permitted to make a request, I feel he went about it incorrectly. The outline is for CA, but would likely apply across the board.
Responding to Closure Orders on the Spot
You may be in attendance when a judge orders everyone to leave the courtroom unless they are associated with the case. Ask for the judge's permission to speak. If the judge allows you to speak, you should politely object to the closure and ask that your objection be noted on the record. Ask the judge for an opportunity present your arguments against closure, and time to prepare your arguments and/or get legal representation. If the judge will not allow you to speak, leave the courtroom. Do not raise your voice and make a scene; disturbing the decorum of a courtroom will very likely have negative consequences.
Remedies if you are denied access
First Amendment. Org Court Access Pdf under court access outlines how to object.
The First Amendment Encyclopedia -- Depending upon the circumstances, proceedings might be closed to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury or to
protect privacy interests of witnesses, jurors, or victims. Before closing a proceeding, a trial court must exhaust all reasonable alternatives to the closure and make specific findings detailing the need for it.
First Amendment doesn't extend to filming in the courtroom
Although the Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue, most federal district and circuit courts have held that the First Amendment right of access does not extend to
audiovisual devices in the courtroom.
In other words, although the public has a right to attend trials, it does not have a right to watch them on television.