Trying the case in the press?
We often hear lawyers tell reporters they don't want to "try the case in the press" as a reason for not speaking to them. I've never really been sure what that means since lawyers are supposed to be adept at screening jurors for potential bias and triers of the fact are precluded from basing decisions on anything other than what is presented in the courtroom as evidence. Most the time, anyway, the lawyers who are making that claim are the ones who are calling reporters and secretly slipping them tips and documents.
Because, let's be honest, for most attorneys? It's all about the public. The public only knows what's going on in the courtroom because reporters are the only ones who bother to show up and see what's going on. And while attorneys will tell you until they're blue in the face that they are fighting for justice, the truth is, many are really fighting for their next paycheck or accolades from their superiors or high fives from their colleagues. They need reporters to get their names and successes out. We need them to make our stories fair, accurate and balanced. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.
When attorneys stand up in court and tell a judge that their opposition is posturing for the media, it creates a dangerous situation. Judges are vigilante about ensuring the integrity of the judicial process and will do whatever is necessary to protect it from any perceived danger - real or not. Often, the result of this is the issuance of a sealing or gag order from the judge.
Such orders were put in place to keep information out of the public that, if released, would be detrimental to a party. For example, revealing what a witness to a dangerous crime said could jeopardize their safety or releasing trade secrets of a corporation would give competitors an unfair advantage. They are NOT, however, supposed to be used to keep information out of the public eye just because either side doesn't like what that information is.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened yesterday in the case against Douglas Bradford, accused of killing a nurse 30 years ago in Torrance. It began a few weeks ago when the prosecutor fought hard to say in open court some damaging accusations against Bradford in support of a restraining order. When the defense attorneys kept interrupting with objections, the judge played it safe and shut the prosecutor down. In response, the prosecutor informed the judge he would file a declaration with the information to keep the court in the know.
The declaration was filed the next day. I reviewed it and wrote a story detailing the accusations it contained against Bradford.
Then, a couple weeks later, I learned that the defense had filed it's own documents opposing the prosecution's bail revocation motion. Unfortunately, due to a busy week and a court holiday, I was not in a position to see the document until Thursday, and planned to review it after the hearing on the bail motion.
But that never happened. The veteran attorneys on the case, all of whom have extensive experience in dealing with high profile cases, played a game of tit for tat. The defense didn't like what the prosecutor had to say about their client, or that I reported it in the Daily Breeze. They asked Judge Hector Guzman to seal it, even though that proverbial cat is already out of the bag. The prosecutor, in response, asked the judge to seal the defense documents. Guzman, seemingly not wanting to get into the crux of the evidence at this juncture, waved his hands and said, "Fine." Just. Like. That.
I don't know what was in the defense documents, but I seriously doubt that there's anything in there that will jeopardize anybody's life or limb. In the old days, a reporter would stand up and object to such an unwarranted barring of access to public information. They'd ask for the proceedings to be put on hold and get an attorney. Those days, unfortunately, are long gone. Newspapers these days are taking drastic measures to stay afloat, and engaging in such legal fights are viewed as a frivolous expense.
So, when you write to me and accuse me of being one sided, inaccurate and biased? Keep this in mind: I can only work with what I've got. And with a paranoid judiciary and a lack of resources, I lay awake at night and wonder what other ways will I be prohibited from doing my job with the integrity it deserves.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
About the Blogger
Larry Altman has covered crime in the South Bay since 1990. He's seen it all - the missing model who turned up dead in the desert, the wives found dead in trunks, the high-school coaches who get a little too close to their players. He drives his young colleagues nuts with his "I remember when" stories. He welcomes your tips and observations about the present, and you can mix in a little Lakers basketball talk if you like.
E-mail Larry at larry.altman@dailybreeze.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
Denise, you continue to do an outstanding job. Ignore the driveby criticisms - mostly trolling anyways. Keep up the great work you're doing by keeping the public informed. The vast majority of us really do appreciate it, even though the few vicious and vocal minority continue to wallow in ignorance.
It seems to me that justice is not served by publicity prior to conclusion of the court case. Mainly because the facts in the case have not been fully vetted.