Kidding! But, no, I'm not aware of this being common anywhere. I mean, I live in MA and we tried Whitey Bulger without secrecy and he and his friends killed LOTS of people. During the trial a witness was killed with cyanide before he could testify as to extortion. There are serious threats to people in criminal trials. Yet, they are basically always open.
I don't like to criticize judges and JS seems like an intelligent enough person but I think there may be some combination of an extremely devious and diabolical defendant who has had years to plot her trial "strategy" combined with a Judge in her first really big case which may be somewhat out of her comfort zone in terms of content as I don't believe she was involved with violent crimes. So, you have a defendant who prods her attorneys to make increasingly absurd and unprecedented accommodations and a judge who doesn't want to have her first big case successfully appealed and who is also likely very legitimately concerned with the defendant's right to a fair trial, and you get a lot of wishy washy uncertainty and caving in. I mean, on the defense atty side, these guys, especially Nurmi are a tad slimy in my opinion and all too willing to push whatever "story" JA comes up with. JA could have had a very good defense without showing her private parts and discussing them for days on end. I found it a highly unusual strategy. So, I think JS gets pushed into making concessions that she could very legitimately deny.
Like the other day, she heard the secret argument and found the public should be excluded and the media should go the overflow room and then, I guess, overuled herself and booted everyone. Doesn't inspire confidence and I'm sure JA and Nurmi are well aware of that and use it to their advantage. JA is a manipulator. Think of everything DeMarte said about her and think of all that focused, for the last 6 years, on her trial and imagine the tricks she has up her sleeve.
Since the court didn't order a specific thing, of course the lawyers will disagree. But generally, that's where the judge role comes in. I don't think the order was that ambiguous. But it didn't focus solely on the stay-it ventured into the merits but also referred to another closed proceeding so it is somewhat difficult for the non-privileged among us to completely understand what the court was suggesting.
The court ordered:
1. To stay JS's order permitting the secret testimony. This just means it, the secret testimony, can't happen until the Appeals Ct hears the merits of the case.
2. Further Ordered that JS can impose a "lesser restriction" as the court contemplated at the hearing on 10/30. I am assuming (dangerous) this means the court is telling her that they can all just forget the stay and continue the trial if she does what she originally planned to do on 10/30 which was bar the public and allow the media in the overflow room. This may be the argument with Nurmi arguing a "lesser restriction" means the media can get the first transcript when he decides it doesn't have to be secret anymore-joking, but since the court didn't order a specific thing the lawyers can argue whatever they want. To me, the Ct is saying, do what you originally wanted to do and keep the trial moving and we can forget this whole thing.
3. Ordered they'll hear the merits later...meaning if they need to if JS, and maybe Nurmi, doesn't take the hint.
So, I'm sure JM is fine with the lesser restriction JS originally ordered so it must be Nurmi refusing. I think JS should just impose that order herself and stand tall! If she doesn't I'm pretty sure the Appeals CT will do it for her and they could go further and just make it totally open. If Nurmi were smart, he'd get on board.
OK, I'll shut up now...
Boytownmom, what do you think of all of the "sealed sidebars" . . . is that common where you are?
What do you think of JSS saying there were different interpretations of the ruling today?
Gitana . . . when ya get up to speed - would love to hear your take on today's happenings.
