BBM. I respectfully disagree. The argument of the Media would make the presumption of openness absolute, upending another strong (and Constitutional - therefore legally superior) legal principle - the right to a fair trial.
The rule is not, in fact, absolute: it provides that the judge has discretion to withhold the AA for a time he may specify if he makes certain findings, viz.:
Rule 55.1 (6) When Request Granted. The court shall not grant any request to limit public access to a court record or to any part of a court record, or enter an order on its own motion limiting such public access, unless it issues a written order in which it:
(I) specifically identifies one or more substantial interests served by making the court record inaccessible to the public or by allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public;
(II) finds that no less restrictive means than making the record inaccessible to the public or allowing only a redacted copy of it to be accessible to the public exists to achieve or protect any substantial interests identified; and
(III) concludes that any substantial interests identified override the presumptive public access to the court record or to an un-redacted copy of it.
The court made the three required findings. We may disagree, but his findings and conclusion are not ridiculous. In fact, the Judge's decision will be upheld unless the appellate court finds that he abused it, if past precedent is followed.
The press has always sought to undemine the right to a fair process, in favor of mob rule led by wealthy publishers, IMO. "The public's right to know" is just a smokescreen.
Each of the "less restrictive means" offered by the press runs afoul of substantial legal issues.
Delaying the trial conflicts with the defendant's right to a speedy trial - within six months of a plea of not guilty. It also may undermine the prosecution's case, as witnesses memories fade and witnesses themselves die or disappear.
Moving the trial elsewhere puts a double burden on the citizens of Chaffee County. It deprives them of an opportunity to judge the guilt or innocence of a community member accused of murdering another community member. It also imposes additional costs on a county whose LE is not flush with money. Finally, in this case, there is no jurisdiction in Colorado where the media is not following this case - where would they move the venue?
I will debate each and every other argument by the Media here, but I am not a lawyer and I am sure the defense team will make much better legal arguments.
Held up against the press's right to make money by publishing a salacious and gruesome story which may or may not prove true in all respects, I come down in favor of Judge Murphy's narrowly tailored order, which relies mostly on protecting the right to a fair process - a substantial interest if I ever saw one.
I look forward to seeing a carefully redacted arrest affidavit when the order restricting access expires. Respecting the rights of the accused that I would want myself if I were wrongfully arrested, I can wait.
about SM having reached a maintenance phase highlights it further.
