I hope to read the papers filed by the media because their argument seems dead on: the motion to seal is supposed to be filed by the custodian - the coroner, not the prosecution. I noted that as being strange back when the motion was first filed. Because it was done in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, the judge treated it the same as any other motion made by a party - requiring a response from the other side.
But CORA, the open records statute, really has nothing to do with pending proceedings - criminal or otherwise. The statute simply governs access to public documents. The custodian (in this case the coroner) needs to file the motion if they want to hold the document back from being disclosed to the public - and the court will then hold a hearing. You can see reference to the proper “usual” procedure in the court’s second order on this topic - no longer requesting a response from the defense, just scheduling a hearing on the matter.
Under CORA, there is only ONE permissible reason to withhold an otherwise public document - the custodian has to demonstrate serious injury to the public (not to private individuals - to the public). It’s a fairly high burden. The only ones that I’ve seen be successful have been things like columbine - enormous widespread tragedies that really couldn’t have been anticipated. Murders, as horrible as they are, just don’t seem to fit the “public injury” situation.
Autopsy reports are NOT considered “law enforcement” documents - which are treated differently under CORA. It is interesting to see the prosecutor (not the proper party, IMO) try to assert the exception (public injury) for law-enforcement related purposes during the pendency of a criminal proceeding. That rationale (witnesses) seems odd too: a suspect has already been arrested and charged, i’m Not sure that the autopsy report will impact anything - or that the argument can be made under CORA.
It’s interesting stuff, for sure