1
00:00:05,880 --> 00:00:07,640
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

2
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 2: Hi, guys, Nancy Grace. Here.

3
00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:19,400
Speaker 3: So much happening in the Brian Coburger prosecution. A lot

4
00:00:19,440 --> 00:00:23,680
Speaker 3: of motions have been filed, some denied, some granted. But

5
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:33,360
Speaker 3: let's hear verbatim word for word critical motions and rulings in.

6
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:35,519
Speaker 2: The Brian Coburger case.

7
00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:41,200
Speaker 3: All of these legal maneuverings going on while the victims'

8
00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:43,960
Speaker 3: families wait for justice.

9
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:46,319
Speaker 2: Dave mac kick it.

10
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:49,879
Speaker 4: Off in the District Court of the Second Judicial District

11
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:51,960
Speaker 4: of the State of Idaho and in for the County

12
00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 4: of Leatah, State of Idaho Plaintiff versus Brian Cee Coberger Defendant,

13
00:00:56,440 --> 00:00:59,000
Speaker 4: case number c ARE two nine dash to twoh two

14
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:02,800
Speaker 4: eight zero five Ordered denying the Associated Press's motion to

15
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:08,560
Speaker 4: vacate the Amended Non Dissemination Order introduction. This order addresses

16
00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:11,839
Speaker 4: the motion to vacate the amended non Dissemination Order filed

17
00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 4: by interveners, a coalition of twenty media outlets that will

18
00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:19,560
Speaker 4: be collectively referred to as the Associated Press. The amended

19
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:23,240
Speaker 4: non Dissemination Order does not restrict, restrain, or in any

20
00:01:23,280 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 4: way enjoin the press from reporting on or publishing information

21
00:01:27,240 --> 00:01:30,959
Speaker 4: they obtained through their own investigations or interviews. The amended

22
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:34,720
Speaker 4: non dissemination Order is not a gag order on the media. Instead,

23
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 4: the page two amended non Dissemination Order restricts attorneys directly

24
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:42,960
Speaker 4: involved in the case who are representing a party, a witness,

25
00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:45,880
Speaker 4: or a victim's family, and the agents for those attorneys,

26
00:01:45,959 --> 00:01:49,640
Speaker 4: including law enforcement, from making certain statements about the case

27
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:53,360
Speaker 4: to the media or the public. Because quote, membership in

28
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 4: the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions unquote. Genteel

29
00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:00,560
Speaker 4: versus State Bar of Nevada, nineteen ninety one, the U. S.

30
00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:03,800
Speaker 4: Supreme Court has recognized that quote, the speech of lawyers

31
00:02:03,880 --> 00:02:08,000
Speaker 4: representing clients impending cases may be regulated under a less

32
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:13,360
Speaker 4: demanding standard than that established for regulation of the press unquote.

33
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,520
Speaker 4: As officers of the court, court personnel, and attorneys have

34
00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:20,200
Speaker 4: a fidiciary responsibility not to engage in public debate that

35
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,080
Speaker 4: will rebound to the detriment of the accused or that

36
00:02:23,080 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 4: will obstruct the fair administration of justice. The purpose of

37
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:30,200
Speaker 4: the amended non dissemination Order, which was stipulated to by

38
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,079
Speaker 4: the parties, is to protect defendant Bryan C. Coburger's right

39
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:37,639
Speaker 4: to a fair trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed

40
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:41,799
Speaker 4: by the sixth Amendment. Quote, few, if any interests under

41
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,519
Speaker 4: the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a

42
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:48,639
Speaker 4: fair trial by impartial jurors, and an outcome affected by

43
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 4: extra judicial statements would violate that fundamental right unquote. The

44
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 4: Associated Press's motion to vacate the amended non dissemination Order

45
00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:00,880
Speaker 4: is denied. This Court has the authority to regulate the

46
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 4: speech of attorneys participating in this case and the agents

47
00:03:04,480 --> 00:03:07,720
Speaker 4: for those attorneys, to ensure that Coburger is not denied

48
00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:11,080
Speaker 4: his right to affair trial by an impartial jury because

49
00:03:11,080 --> 00:03:15,960
Speaker 4: of extrajudicial prejudicial statements. However, this Court will issue a

50
00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 4: revised amended non dissemination order that clarifies what cannot be

51
00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:24,480
Speaker 4: discussed and what can be Page three discussed the revised

52
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:28,280
Speaker 4: Amended non Dissemination Order. One is limited to apply only

53
00:03:28,320 --> 00:03:31,079
Speaker 4: to speech that is substantially likely to have a material

54
00:03:31,160 --> 00:03:34,079
Speaker 4: prejudicial effect on the right to a fair trial. Two

55
00:03:34,639 --> 00:03:38,200
Speaker 4: applies equally to all attorneys participating in the case. Three

56
00:03:38,560 --> 00:03:41,920
Speaker 4: is neutral as two points of view, and four restricts

57
00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 4: attorney's comments only until after the trial and any sentencing

58
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 4: proceedings that may take place. The revised amended non dissemination

59
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:53,400
Speaker 4: order is reasonable considering the facts of this case. One

60
00:03:53,480 --> 00:03:57,440
Speaker 4: the evidence presented by the defense showing the pervasiveness of

61
00:03:57,520 --> 00:04:01,800
Speaker 4: media coverage, including coverage prejudicially Coburger in coverage that includes

62
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:05,520
Speaker 4: extra judicial statements by an attorney participating in the case,

63
00:04:05,720 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 4: and two the impact such prejudicial news coverage has on

64
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 4: potential jurors and the fair administration of justice. The restriction

65
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 4: imposed serves a legitimate purpose, and the very limited incidental

66
00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:21,240
Speaker 4: effects of the revised amended non dissemination order on the

67
00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:25,159
Speaker 4: media's First Amendment rights are overridden by the compelling interest

68
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 4: in ensuring that Coburger's right to a fair trial under

69
00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:34,599
Speaker 4: the sixth Amendment is not jeopardized. Two background. On November thirteen,

70
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,919
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two, four University of Idaho's students Kailey Gonzavez,

71
00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:43,479
Speaker 4: Madison Mogen, Xana Crenodle, and Ethan Chapin were found deceeize

72
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:48,000
Speaker 4: in Gonzavs, Mogen, and Crenodle's off campus home in Moscow, Idaho.

73
00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:51,480
Speaker 4: The cause of death for each was ruled a homicide.

74
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:55,279
Speaker 4: As news of the tragedy broke, media outlets from around

75
00:04:55,320 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 4: the country descended upon Moscow as law enforcement investigated, news stations, newspapers,

76
00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:04,839
Speaker 4: and social media were flooded with stories and speculation about

77
00:05:04,839 --> 00:05:10,000
Speaker 4: the homicides and law enforcement's investigative efforts and abilities. Throughout

78
00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 4: the course of the investigation, the Moscow Police Department, in

79
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 4: partnership with the University of Idaho, the Leytau County Prosecutor's Office,

80
00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:20,839
Speaker 4: and the Idaho State Police held press briefings to answer

81
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:25,960
Speaker 4: questions and reassure the public appropriately. The information released was

82
00:05:26,040 --> 00:05:30,279
Speaker 4: limited to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. Page four.

83
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:34,039
Speaker 4: On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, Coburger was arrested and

84
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 4: charged with four counts of murder in the first degree

85
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:41,040
Speaker 4: and one count of burglary. Again, media outlets descended upon Moscow,

86
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,400
Speaker 4: and the news coverage quickly focused on Coburger. The same

87
00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:47,280
Speaker 4: day that Coburger was charged, his attorney filed a motion

88
00:05:47,400 --> 00:05:50,960
Speaker 4: for non dissemination order, asking the magistrate judge to enter

89
00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:56,039
Speaker 4: an order quote barring parties, their attorneys, investigators, law enforcement personnel,

90
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 4: and potential witnesses from discussing the case with any public

91
00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:05,000
Speaker 4: communication media thereafter. On January three, twenty twenty three, the

92
00:06:05,040 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 4: defense and the state filed a stipulation for non dissemination

93
00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:13,120
Speaker 4: order quote prohibiting attorneys, investigators, and law enforcement personnel from

94
00:06:13,200 --> 00:06:17,240
Speaker 4: making any extra judicial statement, written or oral concerning this

95
00:06:17,400 --> 00:06:21,440
Speaker 4: case other than a quotation from or reference to, without

96
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:24,719
Speaker 4: comment the public records of the court in this case.

97
00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 4: The same day, the magistrate Judge entered a non dissemination

98
00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:32,360
Speaker 4: order prohibiting the parties to the case, including investigators, law

99
00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 4: enforcement personnel, attorneys, and agents of the prosecuting attorney or

100
00:06:36,040 --> 00:06:39,760
Speaker 4: defense attorney, from making extra judicial statements, written or oral

101
00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:43,480
Speaker 4: concerning this case other than a quotation from or referenced to,

102
00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:48,280
Speaker 4: without comment, the public records of the case. On January thirteen,

103
00:06:48,320 --> 00:06:51,640
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, the Magistrate Judge held an in chambers,

104
00:06:51,720 --> 00:06:56,120
Speaker 4: off the record conference with Leytak County Prosecuting Attorney, William W. Thompson,

105
00:06:56,200 --> 00:07:01,800
Speaker 4: Junior Senior Deputy Prosecutor, Actually S. Jennings, FN's Council and C. Taylor,

106
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,320
Speaker 4: attorneys for two witnesses in the case, and Shannon Gray,

107
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:08,599
Speaker 4: attorney for the Gonzavz family. A summary of the meeting,

108
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 4: as prepared by the parties in the case, was filed

109
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:14,320
Speaker 4: with the Idaho Supreme Court on March third, twenty twenty three,

110
00:07:14,360 --> 00:07:17,120
Speaker 4: as part of the declaration of Deborah A. Ferguson in

111
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 4: the case of Petition for rid of Mandamness or rid

112
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:25,000
Speaker 4: of Prohibition Idaho April twenty four to twenty twenty three.

113
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:28,320
Speaker 4: The purpose of the conference was to address the applicability

114
00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:31,000
Speaker 4: of the non dissemination order to the attorneys both present

115
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:34,200
Speaker 4: as Page five parties to the case and the attorneys

116
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:37,840
Speaker 4: participating in the case. The Magistrate judge reminded the attorneys

117
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:40,920
Speaker 4: that this case is a high profile case with both

118
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 4: national and international media coverage, and that they have a

119
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:48,320
Speaker 4: duty under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct to not

120
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:51,240
Speaker 4: interfere with the party's right to a fair trial. The

121
00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:54,080
Speaker 4: magistrate advised the attorneys that it was not their job

122
00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:57,560
Speaker 4: to disseminate information to the media. The Magistrate judge stated

123
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,920
Speaker 4: that the non dissemination order did not reachtrect the attorney's

124
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,160
Speaker 4: non party clients from speaking to the media, but reiterated

125
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:06,200
Speaker 4: the importance of the case being tried in a court

126
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:09,480
Speaker 4: of law and not the media, and encouraged each attorney

127
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:12,200
Speaker 4: to advise their clients accordingly in order to preserve the

128
00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:16,360
Speaker 4: right to affair trial by an impartial jury. On January eighteenth,

129
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:20,040
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, the magistrate judge, based on the stipulation

130
00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:23,360
Speaker 4: of the parties, entered the amended non dissemination order to

131
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:25,640
Speaker 4: balance co burghers and the state's right to a fair

132
00:08:25,680 --> 00:08:29,960
Speaker 4: trial and quote the right to free expression as afforded

133
00:08:30,040 --> 00:08:33,880
Speaker 4: under both the United States and Idaho Constitution unquote. The

134
00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 4: magistrate noted that quote, to preserve the right to a

135
00:08:37,640 --> 00:08:41,240
Speaker 4: fair trial, some curtailment of the dissemination of information in

136
00:08:41,280 --> 00:08:45,360
Speaker 4: the case is necessary and authorized under the law unquote.

137
00:08:45,480 --> 00:08:49,240
Speaker 4: The amended non dissemination Order reads, it is hereby ordered

138
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 4: one the attorneys for any interested party in this case,

139
00:08:53,320 --> 00:08:57,839
Speaker 4: including the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and any attorney representing

140
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:01,320
Speaker 4: a witness, victim, or victim's fe family, as well as

141
00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:04,160
Speaker 4: the parties to the above entitled action, including but not

142
00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:08,040
Speaker 4: limited to, investigators, law enforcement personnel, and agents for the

143
00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:12,000
Speaker 4: prosecuting attorney or defense attorney, are prohibited from making extra

144
00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 4: judicial statements, written or oral, concerning this case, except without

145
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 4: additional comment, a quotation from or reference to the official

146
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 4: public record of the case. Two. This order specifically prohibits

147
00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:29,679
Speaker 4: any statement which a reasonable person would expect to be

148
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:32,680
Speaker 4: disseminated by means of public communication that relates to the

149
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:37,920
Speaker 4: following A Evidence regarding the occurrences or transactions involved in

150
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:43,080
Speaker 4: this case. B The character, credibility, reputation, or criminal records

151
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:46,679
Speaker 4: of a party, victim, or witness, or the identity of

152
00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:50,520
Speaker 4: a witness, or the expected testimony of a party, victim,

153
00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 4: or witness. Page six. See the performance or results of

154
00:09:54,920 --> 00:09:57,960
Speaker 4: any examination or test, or the refusal or failure of

155
00:09:58,000 --> 00:10:01,040
Speaker 4: a person to submit to an examination or test. D

156
00:10:01,760 --> 00:10:04,400
Speaker 4: Any opinion as to the merits of the case, or

157
00:10:04,600 --> 00:10:08,480
Speaker 4: the claims or defense of a party. E. Any information

158
00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:11,960
Speaker 4: a lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to

159
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:14,720
Speaker 4: be an admissible as evidence in a trial, and that would,

160
00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:19,480
Speaker 4: if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial jury.

161
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:24,320
Speaker 4: F Any information reasonably likely to interfere with a fair

162
00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:27,199
Speaker 4: trial in this case afforded under the United States and

163
00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:33,200
Speaker 4: Idaho constitutions, such as the existence or contents of any confession, admission,

164
00:10:33,679 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 4: or statement given by the defendant, the possibility of a

165
00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:40,439
Speaker 4: plea of guilt, or any opinion as to the defendant's

166
00:10:40,520 --> 00:10:44,840
Speaker 4: guilt or innocence. On February sixth, twenty twenty three, the

167
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:48,959
Speaker 4: Associated Press filed a petition for writ of mandamness or

168
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:52,080
Speaker 4: a writ of prohibition with the Idaho Supreme Court related

169
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:55,560
Speaker 4: to the amended non dissemination order. On April twenty fourth,

170
00:10:55,600 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an opinion

171
00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:03,200
Speaker 4: dismissing the Associated Press's petition, finding that although the media

172
00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:06,760
Speaker 4: did have standing to challenge the amended non dissemination order,

173
00:11:07,120 --> 00:11:11,120
Speaker 4: they must first present their petition to the trial court. Thereafter,

174
00:11:11,440 --> 00:11:15,080
Speaker 4: on May second, twenty twenty three, the Associated Press filed

175
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:18,120
Speaker 4: a motion to intervene and a motion to vacate the

176
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:22,200
Speaker 4: amended nomin dissemination order. The magistrates set a scheduling conference

177
00:11:22,240 --> 00:11:25,720
Speaker 4: for May twenty second, twenty twenty three. On May sixteen,

178
00:11:25,880 --> 00:11:29,360
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, an indictment was filed against Coburger, and

179
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:33,760
Speaker 4: this Court began presiding over the case. On May twenty second,

180
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:37,920
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, after Coburger's arraignment, this Court conducted a

181
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:41,680
Speaker 4: scheduling conference and set a briefing schedule and hearing for

182
00:11:41,880 --> 00:11:45,640
Speaker 4: oral argument. The Associated Press's motion to vacate the amended

183
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:49,640
Speaker 4: non dissemination order was extensively briefed, and both the State

184
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 4: and Coburger submitted extensive briefing in opposition to the motion.

185
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:56,400
Speaker 4: Oral argument was heard on June nine, twenty twenty three.

186
00:11:56,760 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 4: The State was represented by William W. Thompson, Junior and

187
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:04,640
Speaker 4: Bradley J. Rudley Letac County Prosecutor's Office. Coberger was represented

188
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:07,720
Speaker 4: by N. C. Taylor and J. W. Logson Katouni County

189
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:11,400
Speaker 4: Public Defender's Office. The Associated Press was represented by Wendy

190
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:15,720
Speaker 4: Olsen and Corey Coron page seven. During the hearing, the

191
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:19,320
Speaker 4: defense put on the testimony of two expert witnesses. First,

192
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:23,080
Speaker 4: Gene R. Sascier, Senior Vice President of Truscope North America,

193
00:12:23,160 --> 00:12:27,200
Speaker 4: testified and some Miss Saucier testified to the quantity of

194
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:30,400
Speaker 4: media coverage in this case. It is undisputed that media

195
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:34,199
Speaker 4: coverage in this case is rampant ongoing, including on television,

196
00:12:34,280 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 4: the Internet, social media, and the radio. News surrounding the

197
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:42,079
Speaker 4: case is being reported by reliable sources of news, unreliable

198
00:12:42,120 --> 00:12:46,679
Speaker 4: news outlets, and individuals engaged in spreading or fueling rumors, theories,

199
00:12:46,679 --> 00:12:50,280
Speaker 4: and unfounded speculation. It is also worth noting that Miss

200
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:54,240
Speaker 4: Saucier's testimony and the exhibits she showed demonstrate that in

201
00:12:54,320 --> 00:12:58,360
Speaker 4: the share of voice media coverage category, Shannon Gray's stories

202
00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:01,200
Speaker 4: in the media had the highest POTENTI reach of five

203
00:13:01,280 --> 00:13:04,000
Speaker 4: hundred and sixty one million, one hundred and twelve thousand,

204
00:13:04,080 --> 00:13:07,800
Speaker 4: five hundred and seventy three impressions, with impressions being the

205
00:13:08,120 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 4: quote opportunities to see unquote a story. Exhibit A to

206
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:16,679
Speaker 4: Defendant's objections to media's mot to vacate the amended non

207
00:13:16,720 --> 00:13:20,520
Speaker 4: dissemination order. Shannon Gray is the attorney for the Gonzavees

208
00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 4: family and is bound by the amended non dissemination order.

209
00:13:24,160 --> 00:13:27,560
Speaker 4: The defense also submitted several news articles demonstrating that at

210
00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:30,319
Speaker 4: least some portion of the news, if not most of it,

211
00:13:30,360 --> 00:13:34,840
Speaker 4: is prejudicial to Coburger see motion to take judicial notice

212
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:39,480
Speaker 4: of press coverage. Second, doctor Amani Lalley, social psychologist and

213
00:13:39,520 --> 00:13:43,360
Speaker 4: social cognition researcher, testified to the impact such media can

214
00:13:43,400 --> 00:13:47,320
Speaker 4: have on a potential juror. It was doctor Lalley's opinion

215
00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:51,439
Speaker 4: that vacating the non dissemination order would increase the potential

216
00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:55,360
Speaker 4: for bias among prospective jurors, both initially and throughout the trial.

217
00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,960
Speaker 4: Doctor Lley further opined that my review of research ille

218
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:04,240
Speaker 4: illustrates that anti defendant pre trial publicity increases the probability

219
00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:07,960
Speaker 4: of guilty verdicts, and that this bias persists despite the

220
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:12,640
Speaker 4: receipt of trial arguments and evidence admonitions to disregard the publicity,

221
00:14:12,679 --> 00:14:17,840
Speaker 4: information and jury deliberation commentary by individuals with status slash

222
00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:21,920
Speaker 4: expertise Page eight e g. Police attorneys and judges in

223
00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:25,440
Speaker 4: the media coverage create more potential for bias jurors exhibit

224
00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 4: deep to defend his objection to media's In MOTI to

225
00:14:28,120 --> 00:14:32,560
Speaker 4: Vacate the Amended Non Dissemination Order three issues presented, the

226
00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:36,680
Speaker 4: Associated Press argues that the amended Non Dissemination Order restrains

227
00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:40,280
Speaker 4: their constitutional right to gather news before it can be exercised,

228
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:43,720
Speaker 4: in violation of the First Amendment. Memorandum ins support of

229
00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:47,240
Speaker 4: MOTI to Vacate Amended Non Dissemination Order at fifteen. The

230
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,440
Speaker 4: Associated Press asserts that their First Amendment rights are being

231
00:14:50,520 --> 00:14:54,320
Speaker 4: violated because the media does not make the news it

232
00:14:54,440 --> 00:14:58,760
Speaker 4: reports the news ID at seventeen. The argument continues that

233
00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:02,520
Speaker 4: if a court w orders an individual not to provide

234
00:15:02,560 --> 00:15:06,520
Speaker 4: information to the media, then the media has nothing to report.

235
00:15:06,920 --> 00:15:11,320
Speaker 4: ID intervener's speech is thus being restrained before they can

236
00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:15,920
Speaker 4: even speak id At fifteen. Thus, the Associated Press alleges

237
00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:19,640
Speaker 4: that the amended non dissemination order is a prior restraint

238
00:15:19,680 --> 00:15:22,800
Speaker 4: in the media and does not survive the strict scrutiny

239
00:15:22,800 --> 00:15:26,760
Speaker 4: test applied to prior restraints on the press. This decision

240
00:15:26,840 --> 00:15:30,880
Speaker 4: addresses the following one the obligation of the court to

241
00:15:31,080 --> 00:15:33,720
Speaker 4: ensure that Coburger's right to a fair trial is not

242
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:39,880
Speaker 4: being jeopardized by prejudicial extra judicial statements. Two, the Court's

243
00:15:39,920 --> 00:15:44,120
Speaker 4: authority to impose restrictions on the speech of those attorneys

244
00:15:44,120 --> 00:15:47,640
Speaker 4: and their agents involved in this case. And three the

245
00:15:47,720 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 4: standard applied to reviewing constitutional challenges by the media to

246
00:15:52,400 --> 00:15:57,320
Speaker 4: non dissemination orders aimed at trial participants, especially lawyers. Finally,

247
00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:00,560
Speaker 4: this decision applies the law to the facts of this

248
00:16:00,760 --> 00:16:04,800
Speaker 4: case in addressing the Associated Press's argument that the amended

249
00:16:04,840 --> 00:16:10,600
Speaker 4: non dissemination order violates their First Amendment rights four law.

250
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:14,600
Speaker 4: In nineteen sixty six, the US Supreme Court recognized the

251
00:16:14,640 --> 00:16:17,840
Speaker 4: definish right to a trial by an impartial jury free

252
00:16:17,880 --> 00:16:21,920
Speaker 4: from outside influences in the face of massive, pervasive and

253
00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:27,880
Speaker 4: prejudicial publicity Shepherd versus Maxwell nineteen sixty six, page nine.

254
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:31,520
Speaker 4: While recognizing that a responsible press has always been regarded

255
00:16:31,560 --> 00:16:34,920
Speaker 4: as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the

256
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:38,040
Speaker 4: criminal field, the court chastised the trial judge for not

257
00:16:38,120 --> 00:16:41,280
Speaker 4: taking strong measures to ensure Shepherd's right to a fair trial.

258
00:16:41,720 --> 00:16:44,760
Speaker 4: In Shepherd, there was not a non dissemination order on

259
00:16:44,840 --> 00:16:48,320
Speaker 4: trial participants or any gag order on the media. Notably,

260
00:16:48,520 --> 00:16:51,960
Speaker 4: in overturning Shepherd's conviction. The Court listed several things that

261
00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:55,640
Speaker 4: the trial court should have done. One, the judge should

262
00:16:55,640 --> 00:16:58,240
Speaker 4: have adopted strict rules governing the use of the court

263
00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:01,760
Speaker 4: room by newsmen and should have more closely regulated the

264
00:17:01,800 --> 00:17:05,120
Speaker 4: conduct of newsmen in the court room. Two the court

265
00:17:05,160 --> 00:17:08,440
Speaker 4: should have insulated the witnesses. All of the newspapers and

266
00:17:08,560 --> 00:17:12,520
Speaker 4: radio stations apparently interviewed prospective witnesses at will, and in

267
00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:17,119
Speaker 4: many instances disclosed their testimony. Three the court should have

268
00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:20,440
Speaker 4: made some effort to control the release of leads, information

269
00:17:20,600 --> 00:17:24,080
Speaker 4: and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses, and

270
00:17:24,240 --> 00:17:27,480
Speaker 4: the council for both sides. Much of the information thus

271
00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:32,280
Speaker 4: disclosed was inaccurate, leading to groundless rumors and confusion. Four

272
00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:35,879
Speaker 4: the judge should have at least warned the newspapers to

273
00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:39,240
Speaker 4: check the accuracy of their accounts. And five, it is

274
00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:43,040
Speaker 4: obvious that the judge should have further sought to alleviate

275
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:47,560
Speaker 4: inaccurate prejudicial news by imposing control over the statements made

276
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:51,560
Speaker 4: to the news media by council witnesses, and especially the

277
00:17:51,720 --> 00:17:56,000
Speaker 4: coroner and police officers. In summary, the court stated that

278
00:17:56,040 --> 00:18:00,360
Speaker 4: the trial court might well have proscribed extra judicial statements

279
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,960
Speaker 4: by any lawyer, party witness, or court official which divulged

280
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:07,280
Speaker 4: prejudicial matters such as the refusal of Shepherd to submit

281
00:18:07,320 --> 00:18:11,040
Speaker 4: to interrogation or take any light detector tests, the identity

282
00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:15,000
Speaker 4: of prospective witnesses or their probable testimony, any belief in

283
00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:18,040
Speaker 4: guilt or innocence, or like statements concerning the merits of

284
00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:22,200
Speaker 4: the case. In this manner, Shepherd's right to a trial

285
00:18:22,359 --> 00:18:25,280
Speaker 4: free from outside influence would have been given out of

286
00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:29,320
Speaker 4: protection Page ten without corresponding for tailment of the news media.

287
00:18:29,800 --> 00:18:32,199
Speaker 4: Had the judge, the other officers of the court, and

288
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:35,919
Speaker 4: the police placed the interest of justice first, the news

289
00:18:35,960 --> 00:18:38,479
Speaker 4: media would have soon learned to be content with the

290
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:41,159
Speaker 4: task of reporting the case as it unfolded in the

291
00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:46,040
Speaker 4: court room, not pieced together from extra judicial statements. In

292
00:18:46,080 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 4: addressing the tension between the First Amendment and the sixth Amendment,

293
00:18:49,119 --> 00:18:52,040
Speaker 4: the Court stated, from the cases coming here, we note

294
00:18:52,119 --> 00:18:55,760
Speaker 4: the unfair and prejudicial news comment on pending trials has

295
00:18:55,840 --> 00:19:00,879
Speaker 4: become increasingly prevalent. Due process requires that the hused receive

296
00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:04,520
Speaker 4: a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences.

297
00:19:05,000 --> 00:19:08,800
Speaker 4: Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty of

298
00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:12,639
Speaker 4: efficing prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors, the

299
00:19:12,680 --> 00:19:16,000
Speaker 4: trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the

300
00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:20,959
Speaker 4: balance is never weighed against the accused, and appellate tribunals

301
00:19:20,960 --> 00:19:24,600
Speaker 4: have the duty to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances.

302
00:19:25,040 --> 00:19:28,080
Speaker 4: Of course, there is nothing that prescribes the press from

303
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:32,119
Speaker 4: reporting events that transpire in the courtroom. But where there

304
00:19:32,160 --> 00:19:35,720
Speaker 4: is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial

305
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:38,480
Speaker 4: will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the

306
00:19:38,520 --> 00:19:41,919
Speaker 4: case until threat debates or transferred to another county not

307
00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:46,200
Speaker 4: so permeated with publicity. In addition, sequestration of the jury

308
00:19:46,280 --> 00:19:49,720
Speaker 4: was something the judge should have raised susponte with counsel

309
00:19:50,280 --> 00:19:54,280
Speaker 4: if publicity during the proceedings threatens the fairness of the trial,

310
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 4: a new trial should be ordered, but we must remember

311
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:02,600
Speaker 4: that reversals are but paidives. The cure lives in those

312
00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:06,760
Speaker 4: remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception.

313
00:20:07,359 --> 00:20:10,919
Speaker 4: The court must take such steps by rule and regulation

314
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:16,800
Speaker 4: that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors,

315
00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:21,600
Speaker 4: counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff, or enforcement

316
00:20:21,640 --> 00:20:24,879
Speaker 4: officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be

317
00:20:24,920 --> 00:20:29,600
Speaker 4: permitted to frustrate its function. Collaboration between Council and the

318
00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:33,320
Speaker 4: press as to information affecting the fairness of a criminal

319
00:20:33,359 --> 00:20:36,840
Speaker 4: trial is not only subject to regulation, but is highly

320
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 4: sensorable and worthy of disciplinary measures. The Associated Press relies

321
00:20:43,240 --> 00:20:47,600
Speaker 4: heavily on CBS Inc. Verjong in support of their position

322
00:20:47,760 --> 00:20:51,680
Speaker 4: that the amended non dissemination order is unconstitutional and must

323
00:20:51,680 --> 00:20:55,480
Speaker 4: be vacated. In that case, the Appellate Court issued a

324
00:20:55,520 --> 00:20:59,920
Speaker 4: decision addressing a non dissemination order entered in a civil case.

325
00:21:00,520 --> 00:21:04,320
Speaker 4: There the non dissemination order prohibited all counsel and court

326
00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:08,800
Speaker 4: Page eleven personnel, all parties concerned with this litigation, whether

327
00:21:08,800 --> 00:21:12,560
Speaker 4: plaintiffs or defendants, their relatives, close friends, and associates from

328
00:21:12,560 --> 00:21:16,000
Speaker 4: discussing any manner whatsoever these cases with members of the

329
00:21:16,040 --> 00:21:19,360
Speaker 4: news media or the public. The press challenged the order

330
00:21:19,440 --> 00:21:23,439
Speaker 4: as violating the press's rights under the First Amendment. The

331
00:21:23,480 --> 00:21:26,480
Speaker 4: Court held as follows. Before a trial court can limit

332
00:21:26,520 --> 00:21:29,480
Speaker 4: defendants and their attorney's exercise of First Amendment rights of

333
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 4: freedom of speech, the record must contain sufficient specific findings

334
00:21:33,320 --> 00:21:36,760
Speaker 4: by the trial court establishing that defendants and their attorney's

335
00:21:36,760 --> 00:21:40,160
Speaker 4: conduct is a serious and imminent threat to the administration

336
00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:44,400
Speaker 4: of justice. Applying either the standard that the speech must

337
00:21:44,480 --> 00:21:47,399
Speaker 4: create a clear and present danger of a serious and

338
00:21:47,440 --> 00:21:50,439
Speaker 4: eminent threat to the administration of justice or the lesser

339
00:21:50,520 --> 00:21:53,840
Speaker 4: standard that there must be a reasonable likelihood of a

340
00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:56,919
Speaker 4: serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice, we

341
00:21:57,119 --> 00:22:02,199
Speaker 4: hold that the trial court's order is constitutional impermissible. The

342
00:22:02,280 --> 00:22:05,280
Speaker 4: Court reasoned that the order issued by the trial court

343
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:09,159
Speaker 4: constituted a prior direct restraint upon freedom of expression. In

344
00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:13,040
Speaker 4: sweeping terms. It seals the lips of all parties concerned

345
00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:17,200
Speaker 4: with this litigation, whether plaintiffs or defendants, their relatives, close friends,

346
00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:21,160
Speaker 4: and associates, from discussing in any manner whatsoever these cases

347
00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:24,080
Speaker 4: with members of the news media, or the public. Although

348
00:22:24,080 --> 00:22:27,480
Speaker 4: the news media are not directly enjoined from discussing the case,

349
00:22:27,880 --> 00:22:31,640
Speaker 4: it is apparent that significant and meaningful sources of information

350
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:36,280
Speaker 4: concerning the case are effectively removed from them and their representatives.

351
00:22:36,640 --> 00:22:40,920
Speaker 4: To that extent, their protected right to obtain information concerning

352
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,400
Speaker 4: the trial is curtailed and impaired. The court continued, we

353
00:22:44,520 --> 00:22:47,119
Speaker 4: find the order to be an extreme example of a

354
00:22:47,160 --> 00:22:50,520
Speaker 4: prior restraint upon freedom of speech and expression, and one

355
00:22:50,520 --> 00:22:53,719
Speaker 4: that cannot escape the prescriptions of the First Amendment unless

356
00:22:53,720 --> 00:22:56,960
Speaker 4: it is shown to have been required to obviate serious

357
00:22:56,960 --> 00:22:59,399
Speaker 4: and imminent threats to the fairness and integrity of the

358
00:22:59,440 --> 00:23:03,680
Speaker 4: trial twelve. In this Court's view, the Young Court's reliance

359
00:23:03,760 --> 00:23:06,399
Speaker 4: on the high standard applied to Craig v. Harney and

360
00:23:06,560 --> 00:23:10,280
Speaker 4: Would be Georgia is misplaced. Both of those cases dealt

361
00:23:10,320 --> 00:23:13,800
Speaker 4: with contempt proceedings and did not address non dissemination orders

362
00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:18,200
Speaker 4: restricting extra judicial statements by specific persons to preserve the

363
00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:21,720
Speaker 4: right to a fair trial. In Harney, three media personnel

364
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:24,680
Speaker 4: were found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to three

365
00:23:24,800 --> 00:23:28,800
Speaker 4: days in jail for publications during an ongoing civil case

366
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:33,680
Speaker 4: in which they criticized the presiding judge. The judge found

367
00:23:33,760 --> 00:23:37,080
Speaker 4: the news reports were designed to falsely represent to the

368
00:23:37,119 --> 00:23:40,600
Speaker 4: public the nature of the proceedings and to prejudice and

369
00:23:40,720 --> 00:23:44,119
Speaker 4: influence the court to grant a new trial. In reversing

370
00:23:44,119 --> 00:23:46,480
Speaker 4: the decision of the trial court, the Court held that,

371
00:23:46,960 --> 00:23:50,719
Speaker 4: giving the editorial all the vehemence which the Court below

372
00:23:50,840 --> 00:23:53,080
Speaker 4: found in it, we failed to see how it could,

373
00:23:53,160 --> 00:23:56,359
Speaker 4: in any realistic sense, create an imminent and serious threat

374
00:23:56,560 --> 00:23:59,159
Speaker 4: to the ability of the court to give fair consideration

375
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:03,480
Speaker 4: to the motion for rehearing. This Court agrees that any

376
00:24:03,560 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 4: attempt by a court to hold the media in contempt

377
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:09,240
Speaker 4: and even jail them for publications critical of the court,

378
00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:13,080
Speaker 4: should be viewed under the strictest scrutiny. However, the facts

379
00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:16,280
Speaker 4: in Harney have no similarity to the restriction on the

380
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:19,719
Speaker 4: speech of trial participants in this case or in the

381
00:24:19,760 --> 00:24:23,800
Speaker 4: Young case. In Wood, a grand jury was impaneled and

382
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:27,480
Speaker 4: instructed by the judge to investigate a voting issue within

383
00:24:27,520 --> 00:24:30,560
Speaker 4: the county. While the grand jury was in session, the

384
00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:34,960
Speaker 4: elected sheriff issued a public statement criticizing the judge for

385
00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:39,720
Speaker 4: singling out the African American community and essentially attempting through

386
00:24:39,840 --> 00:24:44,400
Speaker 4: the judicial process to intimidate and silence the African American vote.

387
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:47,080
Speaker 4: The sheriff also wrote a letter to the grand jury

388
00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:50,959
Speaker 4: implying that the court's charge was false, among other things.

389
00:24:51,480 --> 00:24:54,640
Speaker 4: A month later, the sheriff was cited for contempt. Following

390
00:24:54,640 --> 00:24:57,600
Speaker 4: a trial where the court failed to make any findings

391
00:24:57,760 --> 00:25:00,960
Speaker 4: or articulate any reasoning for its decision, the sheriff was

392
00:25:01,000 --> 00:25:05,120
Speaker 4: found guilty of Page thirteen contempt and sentenced to twenty

393
00:25:05,200 --> 00:25:08,680
Speaker 4: days in jail. In overturning the contempt conviction, the Supreme

394
00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:12,119
Speaker 4: Court held that as an elected official, the sheriff had

395
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:15,800
Speaker 4: the right to enter the field of political controversy, particularly

396
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:18,879
Speaker 4: where his political life was at stake. The role that

397
00:25:18,920 --> 00:25:21,919
Speaker 4: elected officials play in our society makes it all the

398
00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:25,399
Speaker 4: more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves

399
00:25:25,640 --> 00:25:29,159
Speaker 4: on matters of current public importance. Our examination of the

400
00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:32,439
Speaker 4: content of the petitioner's statements and circumstances under which they

401
00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 4: were published leads us to conclude that they did not

402
00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:40,000
Speaker 4: present a danger to the administration of justice that should

403
00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:43,439
Speaker 4: a vitiate his freedom to express his opinions in the

404
00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:48,120
Speaker 4: manner chosen again, the facts in would have no similarities

405
00:25:48,119 --> 00:25:51,280
Speaker 4: to the amended non dissemination order in this case or

406
00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:54,719
Speaker 4: the facts in Young. Additionally, the Young Court's finding that

407
00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:58,000
Speaker 4: before a trial court can limit defendants and their attorney's

408
00:25:58,080 --> 00:26:01,879
Speaker 4: exercise of First Amendment rights freedom of speech, the record

409
00:26:01,960 --> 00:26:05,879
Speaker 4: must contain sufficient specific findings by the trial court establishing

410
00:26:05,920 --> 00:26:09,119
Speaker 4: that defendants and their attorney's conduct is a serious and

411
00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:12,560
Speaker 4: imminent threat to the administration of justice is at odds

412
00:26:12,760 --> 00:26:15,960
Speaker 4: with the Supreme Court's later holding in Genteel that will

413
00:26:16,000 --> 00:26:20,600
Speaker 4: be discussed below, but see Levigne b us. District Court

414
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:24,680
Speaker 4: for Central District of California, Ninth Circuit, nineteen eighty five.

415
00:26:25,119 --> 00:26:29,080
Speaker 4: The trial court imposed a restraining order prohibiting attorneys involved

416
00:26:29,080 --> 00:26:32,480
Speaker 4: in the case from communicating with the media regarding the

417
00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:36,159
Speaker 4: merits of the case. In reviewing the restraining order, the

418
00:26:36,280 --> 00:26:41,040
Speaker 4: Ninth Circuit applied strict scrutiny regardless of the standard applied

419
00:26:41,080 --> 00:26:44,760
Speaker 4: to a constitutional challenge by a lawyer restricted by a

420
00:26:44,800 --> 00:26:48,480
Speaker 4: non dissemination order, a less demanding standard is applied when

421
00:26:48,480 --> 00:26:52,120
Speaker 4: the media challenges such an order. Radio and Television News

422
00:26:52,200 --> 00:26:55,760
Speaker 4: Association of Southern California versus U. S. District Court for

423
00:26:55,840 --> 00:26:59,800
Speaker 4: Central District of California, Ninth Circuit, nineteen eighty six. In

424
00:27:00,119 --> 00:27:04,040
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy six, the US Supreme Court again addressed the

425
00:27:04,119 --> 00:27:07,320
Speaker 4: tensions between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment in

426
00:27:07,400 --> 00:27:09,280
Speaker 4: Nebraska Press Association b.

427
00:27:09,480 --> 00:27:25,800
Speaker 1: Stewart Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, page fourteen.

428
00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:30,280
Speaker 4: Even then, in nineteen seventy six, the Court acknowledged that

429
00:27:30,320 --> 00:27:33,720
Speaker 4: the speed of communication and the pervasiveness of the modern

430
00:27:33,800 --> 00:27:37,160
Speaker 4: news media have exacerbated the tension between the First Amendment

431
00:27:37,359 --> 00:27:41,399
Speaker 4: and the Sixth Amendment. Unlike in this case, Nebraska Press

432
00:27:41,440 --> 00:27:44,320
Speaker 4: dealt with a restraint on the media's ability to publish

433
00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:48,760
Speaker 4: or broadcast specific information, i e. Restraint on freedom of

434
00:27:48,800 --> 00:27:51,919
Speaker 4: the press, and not a restraint on freedom of speech.

435
00:27:52,400 --> 00:27:56,520
Speaker 4: The Court recognized that when the case is a sensational one,

436
00:27:56,680 --> 00:27:59,960
Speaker 4: tensions developed between the right of the accused to trial

437
00:28:00,119 --> 00:28:03,160
Speaker 4: by an impartial jury and the rights guaranteed others by

438
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:06,800
Speaker 4: the First Amendment. The Court noted that a prior restraint

439
00:28:06,800 --> 00:28:10,840
Speaker 4: on speech is most serious and the least tolerable infringement

440
00:28:10,920 --> 00:28:15,200
Speaker 4: on the First Amendment rights, while also acknowledging that when

441
00:28:15,359 --> 00:28:18,160
Speaker 4: the death penalty is on the table, it is not

442
00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:21,000
Speaker 4: requiring too much that a defendant be tried in an

443
00:28:21,040 --> 00:28:24,960
Speaker 4: atmosphere undisturbed by so huge a wave of public passion.

444
00:28:25,240 --> 00:28:28,440
Speaker 4: The Court stated that it is not asking too much

445
00:28:28,640 --> 00:28:32,520
Speaker 4: to suggest that those who exercise First Amendment rights in

446
00:28:32,640 --> 00:28:37,040
Speaker 4: newspapers or broadcasting enterprises directs some effort to protect the

447
00:28:37,119 --> 00:28:40,800
Speaker 4: rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors.

448
00:28:41,920 --> 00:28:45,680
Speaker 4: In a footnote in the concurring opinion authored by Justice Brennan,

449
00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:50,080
Speaker 4: the following was noted. A significant component of prejudicial pre

450
00:28:50,160 --> 00:28:53,920
Speaker 4: trial publicity may be traced to public commentary on pending

451
00:28:53,960 --> 00:28:58,320
Speaker 4: cases by court personnel, law enforcement officials, and the attorneys

452
00:28:58,360 --> 00:29:01,680
Speaker 4: involved in the case. In in Shepherd v. Maxwellsupra, we

453
00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:06,360
Speaker 4: observed that the trial court might well have prescribed extrajudicial

454
00:29:06,480 --> 00:29:09,720
Speaker 4: statements by any lawyer, party witness, or court official which

455
00:29:09,760 --> 00:29:13,720
Speaker 4: divulged prejudicial matters. The judge should have further sought to

456
00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:17,520
Speaker 4: alleviate this problem of publicity that misrepresented the trial testimony

457
00:29:17,800 --> 00:29:20,920
Speaker 4: by imposing control over the statements made to the news

458
00:29:20,960 --> 00:29:25,640
Speaker 4: media by council witnesses and especially the coroner and police

459
00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:29,680
Speaker 4: officer Page fifteen. As officers of the court, court personnel

460
00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:33,560
Speaker 4: and attorneys have a fidiciary responsibility not to engage in

461
00:29:33,600 --> 00:29:37,120
Speaker 4: public debate that will redound to the detriment of the accused,

462
00:29:37,280 --> 00:29:40,680
Speaker 4: or that will obstruct the fair administration of justice. It

463
00:29:40,760 --> 00:29:43,520
Speaker 4: is very doubtful that the Court would not have the

464
00:29:43,560 --> 00:29:47,280
Speaker 4: power to control release of information by these individuals in

465
00:29:47,320 --> 00:29:52,280
Speaker 4: appropriate cases, and to impose suitable limitations whose transgression could

466
00:29:52,320 --> 00:29:58,360
Speaker 4: result in disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, in most cases, courts would

467
00:29:58,400 --> 00:30:02,280
Speaker 4: have ample power to control such actions by law enforcement personnel.

468
00:30:02,960 --> 00:30:07,080
Speaker 4: Shepard and Nebraska Press leave no doubt that in appropriate cases,

469
00:30:07,400 --> 00:30:10,000
Speaker 4: the court has the authority to regulate the speech of

470
00:30:10,040 --> 00:30:12,760
Speaker 4: attorneys involved in a case, as well as their agents,

471
00:30:12,800 --> 00:30:16,720
Speaker 4: such as law enforcement, to prevent prejudicial pre trial statements

472
00:30:16,760 --> 00:30:19,560
Speaker 4: to preserve the right to a fair trial by an

473
00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:23,240
Speaker 4: impartial jury. In nineteen eighty five and nineteen eighty six,

474
00:30:23,560 --> 00:30:27,160
Speaker 4: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the situation strikingly

475
00:30:27,240 --> 00:30:29,920
Speaker 4: similar to the one now before the Court in two

476
00:30:29,960 --> 00:30:34,600
Speaker 4: separate opinions. As way of background, defendant Richard Miller, a

477
00:30:34,720 --> 00:30:39,360
Speaker 4: former FBI agent, was charged with espionage. The case received

478
00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:43,400
Speaker 4: extensive local and national media coverage after attorneys for both

479
00:30:43,400 --> 00:30:47,480
Speaker 4: the prosecution and the defense engaged in extra judicial statements

480
00:30:47,520 --> 00:30:50,920
Speaker 4: to the medium. The trial court entered an order prohibiting

481
00:30:51,120 --> 00:30:54,480
Speaker 4: all attorneys in the case from making any statements to

482
00:30:54,600 --> 00:30:58,040
Speaker 4: members of the news media concerning any aspect of the

483
00:30:58,120 --> 00:31:01,239
Speaker 4: case that bears upon the merits to be resolved by

484
00:31:01,360 --> 00:31:05,520
Speaker 4: the jury. In Levigne, the Court addressed a challenge to

485
00:31:05,960 --> 00:31:09,600
Speaker 4: the non dissemination order brought by Defense Council. The Court

486
00:31:09,720 --> 00:31:13,600
Speaker 4: framed the issue as addressing the clash between the basic

487
00:31:13,640 --> 00:31:16,720
Speaker 4: and fundamental right to a fair criminal jury trial and

488
00:31:16,800 --> 00:31:19,960
Speaker 4: the First Amendment right of attorneys to engage in free speech.

489
00:31:20,640 --> 00:31:24,080
Speaker 4: In reviewing the restraining order, the Ninth Circuit noted that

490
00:31:24,320 --> 00:31:29,160
Speaker 4: the District Court's order, page sixteen, applies only two participants.

491
00:31:29,480 --> 00:31:32,720
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court has suggested that it is appropriate to

492
00:31:32,760 --> 00:31:35,840
Speaker 4: impose greater restrictions on the free speech rights of trial

493
00:31:35,880 --> 00:31:39,600
Speaker 4: participants than on the rights of non participants. The case

494
00:31:39,640 --> 00:31:43,080
Speaker 4: for restraints on trial participants is especially strong with respect

495
00:31:43,120 --> 00:31:47,800
Speaker 4: to attorneys. The Court nevertheless applied strict scrutiny Accordingly, the

496
00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:51,320
Speaker 4: District Court's order may be upheld only if the government

497
00:31:51,400 --> 00:31:55,080
Speaker 4: establishes that one the activity restraint poses either a clear

498
00:31:55,120 --> 00:31:57,720
Speaker 4: and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to

499
00:31:57,800 --> 00:32:01,720
Speaker 4: a protected competing interest. Two, the order is narrowly drawn

500
00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:06,760
Speaker 4: and three less restrictive alternatives are not available. The Court

501
00:32:06,840 --> 00:32:09,880
Speaker 4: concluded that the speech of the lawyers did pose a

502
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:13,080
Speaker 4: serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice, and

503
00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:17,200
Speaker 4: that the trial court's choice of remedy was appropriate. However,

504
00:32:17,560 --> 00:32:20,640
Speaker 4: the Court found that the non dissemination order was over

505
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:24,120
Speaker 4: broad and directed the District Court as follows. It is

506
00:32:24,160 --> 00:32:27,000
Speaker 4: apparent that many statements that bear upon the merits to

507
00:32:27,040 --> 00:32:29,760
Speaker 4: be resolved by the jury present no danger to the

508
00:32:29,800 --> 00:32:33,640
Speaker 4: administration of justice. After the filing of this opinion, the

509
00:32:33,680 --> 00:32:38,040
Speaker 4: District Court must determine which types of extra judicial statements

510
00:32:38,080 --> 00:32:41,320
Speaker 4: pose a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.

511
00:32:41,400 --> 00:32:45,000
Speaker 4: In this case, the District Court then must fashion an

512
00:32:45,080 --> 00:32:49,080
Speaker 4: order specifying the prescribed types of statements. With regard to

513
00:32:49,200 --> 00:32:52,600
Speaker 4: statements by the prosecution, it would be appropriate for the

514
00:32:52,640 --> 00:32:56,200
Speaker 4: District Court to order the government to observe the self

515
00:32:56,240 --> 00:33:00,880
Speaker 4: imposed limitations step forth in twenty eight CFI fifty point

516
00:33:01,040 --> 00:33:05,280
Speaker 4: two b nineteen eighty four. With regard to statements by

517
00:33:05,320 --> 00:33:09,000
Speaker 4: the defense, it would be appropriate to prescribe statements relating

518
00:33:09,040 --> 00:33:13,760
Speaker 4: to one or more of the following subjects. One the character,

519
00:33:14,120 --> 00:33:18,720
Speaker 4: credibility or reputation of the party. Two the identity of

520
00:33:18,760 --> 00:33:21,880
Speaker 4: a witness or the expected testimony of a party or

521
00:33:21,960 --> 00:33:26,760
Speaker 4: a witness. Three the contents of any pre trial confession, admission,

522
00:33:26,920 --> 00:33:31,040
Speaker 4: or statement given by a defendant, or that person's refusal

523
00:33:31,120 --> 00:33:34,520
Speaker 4: or failure to make a statement. Four the identity or

524
00:33:34,680 --> 00:33:37,719
Speaker 4: nature of physical evidence expected to be presented, or the

525
00:33:37,760 --> 00:33:42,160
Speaker 4: absence of such physical evidence. Five the strengths or weaknesses

526
00:33:42,280 --> 00:33:45,680
Speaker 4: of the case of either party, And six any other

527
00:33:45,760 --> 00:33:49,840
Speaker 4: information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely

528
00:33:50,000 --> 00:33:53,080
Speaker 4: to be inadmissible as evidence and would create a substantial

529
00:33:53,160 --> 00:33:57,240
Speaker 4: risk of prejudice if disclosed Page seventeen, id at five

530
00:33:57,400 --> 00:34:00,520
Speaker 4: nine nine, citing Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule three

531
00:34:00,560 --> 00:34:03,840
Speaker 4: point six, nineteen eighty three, ABA Standards for a Criminal

532
00:34:04,000 --> 00:34:07,120
Speaker 4: Justice Standard eight DASH one point one, nineteen eighty two,

533
00:34:07,400 --> 00:34:10,879
Speaker 4: Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR sevenh one oh seven,

534
00:34:11,040 --> 00:34:13,840
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy nine. The case then went back to the

535
00:34:13,880 --> 00:34:17,120
Speaker 4: trial court. The trial court amended its restraining order to

536
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:20,520
Speaker 4: adopt the six categories of speech by lawyers specified by

537
00:34:20,560 --> 00:34:24,719
Speaker 4: the Ninth Circuit as appropriate to prescribe. The Radio and

538
00:34:24,760 --> 00:34:27,840
Speaker 4: Television News Association then filed for a rid amandamus with

539
00:34:27,960 --> 00:34:31,480
Speaker 4: the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the restraining order, even as amended,

540
00:34:31,760 --> 00:34:36,000
Speaker 4: posed an unconstitutional prior restraint infringing freedom of the press.

541
00:34:37,360 --> 00:34:41,239
Speaker 4: The Ninth Circuit addressed the media's challenge in radio like Here,

542
00:34:41,400 --> 00:34:45,120
Speaker 4: the media argued that the order, by effectively denying media

543
00:34:45,160 --> 00:34:49,759
Speaker 4: access to trial participants, constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on the

544
00:34:49,800 --> 00:34:52,840
Speaker 4: media's ability to gather news. Much of the court's opinion

545
00:34:52,920 --> 00:34:56,840
Speaker 4: concluded that the trial court's amended restraining order was reasonable

546
00:34:56,920 --> 00:35:01,000
Speaker 4: and served a legitimate purpose. Is worth repeating. The impact

547
00:35:01,160 --> 00:35:04,319
Speaker 4: on the media in this case is significantly different from

548
00:35:04,400 --> 00:35:08,240
Speaker 4: situations where the media is denied access to a criminal

549
00:35:08,280 --> 00:35:12,640
Speaker 4: trial or is restricted in disseminating any information it obtains.

550
00:35:13,160 --> 00:35:16,719
Speaker 4: In contrast, the district Court's order in this case is

551
00:35:16,760 --> 00:35:20,160
Speaker 4: not directed towards the press at all. On the contrary,

552
00:35:20,480 --> 00:35:23,440
Speaker 4: the media is free to attend all of the trial

553
00:35:23,480 --> 00:35:27,160
Speaker 4: proceedings before the District Court and to report anything that happens.

554
00:35:27,440 --> 00:35:30,879
Speaker 4: In fact, the press remains free to direct questions at

555
00:35:30,920 --> 00:35:34,920
Speaker 4: trial council. Trial council simply may not be free to answer.

556
00:35:35,400 --> 00:35:38,440
Speaker 4: In some the media's right to gather news and disseminated

557
00:35:38,480 --> 00:35:41,400
Speaker 4: to the public has not been restrained. As we noted

558
00:35:41,440 --> 00:35:44,759
Speaker 4: in Levine, the District Court's order raises a freedom of

559
00:35:44,800 --> 00:35:48,440
Speaker 4: the press issue that is analytically distinct from the issue

560
00:35:48,520 --> 00:35:52,839
Speaker 4: that were raised in Associated Press and CBS. Rather, the

561
00:35:52,960 --> 00:35:57,279
Speaker 4: RTNA asserts a First Amendment right of full access to

562
00:35:57,360 --> 00:36:02,600
Speaker 4: trial participants. This assertion is not supported by constitutional case law.

563
00:36:02,960 --> 00:36:07,560
Speaker 4: See Pel v. Procrnier, nineteen seventy four. In holding that

564
00:36:07,600 --> 00:36:11,080
Speaker 4: freedom of the press was not infringed by government restrictions

565
00:36:11,080 --> 00:36:15,200
Speaker 4: on interviews with prison inmates, court rejected media assertion of

566
00:36:15,320 --> 00:36:18,160
Speaker 4: right of access to the sources of what is regarded

567
00:36:18,200 --> 00:36:23,280
Speaker 4: as newsworthy information. The press does enjoy a constitutional interest

568
00:36:23,360 --> 00:36:27,080
Speaker 4: in access to our criminal courts and criminal justice process.

569
00:36:27,640 --> 00:36:32,400
Speaker 4: In Richmond Newspapers, Page eighteen, nineteen eighty, the Supreme Court

570
00:36:32,440 --> 00:36:35,560
Speaker 4: affirmed the First Amendment right of access or right to

571
00:36:35,640 --> 00:36:40,000
Speaker 4: gather information granted to the press with respect to criminal trials. However,

572
00:36:40,400 --> 00:36:45,240
Speaker 4: the Court described that right only as a right to sit, listen, watch,

573
00:36:45,320 --> 00:36:50,120
Speaker 4: and report. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, the Supreme Court

574
00:36:50,160 --> 00:36:54,600
Speaker 4: held that the First Amendment generally grants the press no

575
00:36:54,760 --> 00:36:57,799
Speaker 4: right to information about a trial superior to that of

576
00:36:57,880 --> 00:37:02,520
Speaker 4: the general public. The First Amendment does not grant the

577
00:37:02,560 --> 00:37:06,239
Speaker 4: press a constitutional right of special access to information not

578
00:37:06,320 --> 00:37:09,680
Speaker 4: available to the public. Generally, as with the public, the

579
00:37:09,680 --> 00:37:12,760
Speaker 4: press has no greater privilege than the right to attend

580
00:37:12,760 --> 00:37:16,759
Speaker 4: the trial. In short, the media's right to gather information

581
00:37:16,920 --> 00:37:19,439
Speaker 4: during a criminal trial is no more than a right

582
00:37:19,520 --> 00:37:23,200
Speaker 4: to attend the trial and report on their observations. Kpn

583
00:37:23,360 --> 00:37:27,560
Speaker 4: X Broadcasting Company, nineteen eighty four, holding that limitations on

584
00:37:27,600 --> 00:37:31,120
Speaker 4: the media's ability to interview trial participants do not violate

585
00:37:31,160 --> 00:37:34,360
Speaker 4: the First Amendment. The media is granted access to the

586
00:37:34,360 --> 00:37:37,920
Speaker 4: same information, but nothing more that is available to the public.

587
00:37:38,280 --> 00:37:41,480
Speaker 4: The district court, having determined that the free speech rights

588
00:37:41,480 --> 00:37:44,719
Speaker 4: to the trial council must be restrained, the media has

589
00:37:44,800 --> 00:37:47,200
Speaker 4: no greater right than the public to hear that speech.

590
00:37:47,719 --> 00:37:51,080
Speaker 4: The media never has any guarantee of or right to

591
00:37:51,280 --> 00:37:54,759
Speaker 4: interview council in a criminal trial. Trial council are, of

592
00:37:54,840 --> 00:37:58,359
Speaker 4: course free to refuse interviews, whether or not restrained by

593
00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:02,319
Speaker 4: court order. If such an individual refuses an interview, the

594
00:38:02,400 --> 00:38:06,240
Speaker 4: media has no recourse to relief based upon the First Amendment.

595
00:38:06,800 --> 00:38:11,399
Speaker 4: In some the media's collateral interest in interviewing trial participants

596
00:38:11,440 --> 00:38:14,720
Speaker 4: is outside the scope of protection offered by the First Amendment.

597
00:38:15,080 --> 00:38:19,160
Speaker 4: The media's desire to obtain access to certain sources of

598
00:38:19,200 --> 00:38:23,160
Speaker 4: information that otherwise might be available is not sufficient interest

599
00:38:23,239 --> 00:38:26,120
Speaker 4: to establish an infringement of freedom of the press in

600
00:38:26,160 --> 00:38:30,280
Speaker 4: this case. Consequently, we are not required to consider whether

601
00:38:30,360 --> 00:38:34,280
Speaker 4: the District Court's amended restraining order can withstand strict scrutiny

602
00:38:34,480 --> 00:38:37,360
Speaker 4: as a prior restraint on constitutional freedom of the press.

603
00:38:37,719 --> 00:38:41,480
Speaker 4: We need only examine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable,

604
00:38:41,520 --> 00:38:45,000
Speaker 4: and whether the interests of the government override the very

605
00:38:45,080 --> 00:38:48,560
Speaker 4: limited incidental effects of the order on First Amendment rights.

606
00:38:48,840 --> 00:38:53,320
Speaker 4: The restrictions imposed also must not serve as an illegitimate purpose.

607
00:38:54,000 --> 00:38:57,760
Speaker 4: The District Court found that restrictions on the extra judicial

608
00:38:57,840 --> 00:39:01,000
Speaker 4: statements of trial council to the press were necessary to

609
00:39:01,040 --> 00:39:05,360
Speaker 4: reduce prejudicial publicity. We cannot say it was unreasonable for

610
00:39:05,480 --> 00:39:08,920
Speaker 4: the District Court to conclude the statements by trial counsel

611
00:39:08,960 --> 00:39:11,600
Speaker 4: on matters bearing on the merits of the trial might

612
00:39:11,680 --> 00:39:14,360
Speaker 4: impair the fairness of the trial or threaten the integrity

613
00:39:14,360 --> 00:39:17,719
Speaker 4: of the judicial process. Nor is there any indication in

614
00:39:17,760 --> 00:39:20,719
Speaker 4: the record that the District Court's order was intended to

615
00:39:20,760 --> 00:39:24,480
Speaker 4: conceal the workings of the criminal justice system. The press

616
00:39:24,520 --> 00:39:27,920
Speaker 4: remains free to attend the trial and scrutinize the fairness

617
00:39:27,920 --> 00:39:31,560
Speaker 4: of the proceedings. On the basis of this limited standard

618
00:39:31,560 --> 00:39:36,000
Speaker 4: of review. The page nineteen District Courts Amended restraining order

619
00:39:36,080 --> 00:39:40,200
Speaker 4: is reasonable and serves a legitimate purpose. Radio makes clear

620
00:39:40,320 --> 00:39:43,759
Speaker 4: that strict scrutiny does not apply to challenges by the

621
00:39:43,800 --> 00:39:47,000
Speaker 4: press of non dissemination orders that do not restrain the

622
00:39:47,040 --> 00:39:52,240
Speaker 4: media but instead restrain trial participants, as in this case. Instead,

623
00:39:52,360 --> 00:39:56,000
Speaker 4: the standard to be applied is whether the restrictions imposed

624
00:39:56,040 --> 00:39:59,839
Speaker 4: are reasonable and whether the interests of the government override

625
00:40:00,160 --> 00:40:03,279
Speaker 4: the very limited incidental effects of the order on First

626
00:40:03,360 --> 00:40:07,320
Speaker 4: Amendment rights, and whether the restrictions imposed serve a legitimate purpose.

627
00:40:08,200 --> 00:40:11,879
Speaker 4: As expressly recognized by the Supreme Court in nineteen ninety one,

628
00:40:12,360 --> 00:40:16,000
Speaker 4: the speech of those participating before the courts can be limited.

629
00:40:16,840 --> 00:40:21,200
Speaker 4: In Genteel, a defense attorney held at press conference after

630
00:40:21,239 --> 00:40:24,520
Speaker 4: his client was indicted. Genteel proclaimed that the evidence at

631
00:40:24,560 --> 00:40:27,480
Speaker 4: trial would prove his client was innocent and that crooked

632
00:40:27,560 --> 00:40:30,759
Speaker 4: cops were the ones responsible for stealing the drugs and

633
00:40:30,880 --> 00:40:35,120
Speaker 4: money at issue. Genteel also commented on other aspects of

634
00:40:35,160 --> 00:40:40,000
Speaker 4: the defense's case. Six months later, Genteel's client was acquitted. Thereafter,

635
00:40:40,239 --> 00:40:43,640
Speaker 4: the Nevada State Bar filed a complaint against Genteel, alleging

636
00:40:43,719 --> 00:40:47,600
Speaker 4: that he violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule one seventeen, which

637
00:40:47,640 --> 00:40:51,319
Speaker 4: prohibited a lawyer from making extra judicial statements to the

638
00:40:51,360 --> 00:40:56,560
Speaker 4: press that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a trial. However,

639
00:40:56,920 --> 00:41:00,760
Speaker 4: Rule one seventeen expressly allowed a lawyer to d without

640
00:41:00,840 --> 00:41:05,240
Speaker 4: elaboration the general nature of the defense. The State Bar's

641
00:41:05,280 --> 00:41:08,720
Speaker 4: disciplinary board found Genteel in violation of Rule one seventeen

642
00:41:08,800 --> 00:41:12,120
Speaker 4: and recommended that he be reprimanded. Ultimately, the Supreme Court

643
00:41:12,120 --> 00:41:15,319
Speaker 4: held that Nevada Supreme Court Rules Rule one seventeen, as

644
00:41:15,320 --> 00:41:19,400
Speaker 4: applied to the facts of the Genteel case, was unconstitutionally vague.

645
00:41:19,560 --> 00:41:23,320
Speaker 4: The Court noted that the safe harbor provision misled Gentiel

646
00:41:23,440 --> 00:41:25,960
Speaker 4: into thinking that he could make the statements he made

647
00:41:26,320 --> 00:41:30,440
Speaker 4: without discipline, page twenty. Despite the holding that Rule one

648
00:41:30,560 --> 00:41:35,360
Speaker 4: seventeen was unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied, the Court

649
00:41:35,480 --> 00:41:39,880
Speaker 4: continued to recognize that the speech of lawyers representing clients

650
00:41:39,880 --> 00:41:43,240
Speaker 4: impending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard

651
00:41:43,560 --> 00:41:46,880
Speaker 4: than that established for regulation of the press in Nebraska

652
00:41:47,080 --> 00:41:50,400
Speaker 4: Press Association b. Stewart in nineteen seventy six and the

653
00:41:50,480 --> 00:41:54,680
Speaker 4: cases which preceded it. Lawyers representing clients impending cases are

654
00:41:54,760 --> 00:41:58,600
Speaker 4: key participants in the criminal justice system, and the state

655
00:41:58,719 --> 00:42:01,640
Speaker 4: may demand some adherents to the precepts of the system

656
00:42:01,640 --> 00:42:05,239
Speaker 4: in regulating their speech as well as their conduct. As

657
00:42:05,360 --> 00:42:08,799
Speaker 4: officers of the court, court personnel and attorneys have a

658
00:42:08,840 --> 00:42:13,439
Speaker 4: fiduciary responsibility not to engage in public debate that will

659
00:42:13,480 --> 00:42:16,520
Speaker 4: redound to the detriment of the accused or that will

660
00:42:16,560 --> 00:42:20,680
Speaker 4: obstruct the fair administration of justice. Because lawyers have special

661
00:42:20,719 --> 00:42:24,600
Speaker 4: access to information through discovery and client communications, their extra

662
00:42:24,719 --> 00:42:27,720
Speaker 4: judicial statements pose a threat to the fairness of appending

663
00:42:27,800 --> 00:42:32,359
Speaker 4: proceeding since lawyers statements are likely to be received as

664
00:42:32,480 --> 00:42:37,680
Speaker 4: especially authoritative. The key takeaways from Levigne and Genteel are

665
00:42:37,880 --> 00:42:40,560
Speaker 4: that a court can to protect the right to affair

666
00:42:40,640 --> 00:42:44,480
Speaker 4: trial prohibit lawyers involved in a case from making extra

667
00:42:44,600 --> 00:42:48,160
Speaker 4: judicial statements to the press, so long as the regulation

668
00:42:48,320 --> 00:42:51,880
Speaker 4: is not overbroad, it's clear and provides notice of what

669
00:42:52,200 --> 00:42:56,360
Speaker 4: is prohibited. While the Levine Court applied strict scrutiny, Genteel

670
00:42:56,440 --> 00:43:00,279
Speaker 4: suggests that a less demanding standard applies to restrictions on

671
00:43:00,320 --> 00:43:04,240
Speaker 4: the speech of lawyers participating and pending cases. The ability

672
00:43:04,239 --> 00:43:06,640
Speaker 4: of a court to restrict the speech of a lawyer

673
00:43:06,680 --> 00:43:09,719
Speaker 4: participating in a case is rooted in a lawyer status

674
00:43:09,920 --> 00:43:12,920
Speaker 4: as an officer of the legal system and a public

675
00:43:13,000 --> 00:43:19,080
Speaker 4: citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice IRPC Preamble.

676
00:43:19,520 --> 00:43:24,719
Speaker 4: A lawyer's responsibility. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the

677
00:43:24,840 --> 00:43:28,880
Speaker 4: legal system and for those who serve it, including judges,

678
00:43:29,239 --> 00:43:33,280
Speaker 4: other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty,

679
00:43:33,400 --> 00:43:38,279
Speaker 4: when necessary, to Page twenty one challenge the rectitude of

680
00:43:38,280 --> 00:43:41,800
Speaker 4: official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold

681
00:43:41,920 --> 00:43:46,120
Speaker 4: legal process. As an officer of the court, a lawyer

682
00:43:46,160 --> 00:43:49,440
Speaker 4: has a duty to preserve the integrity of the legal system,

683
00:43:49,520 --> 00:43:53,560
Speaker 4: search for the truth, while maintaining a professional, courteous, and

684
00:43:53,680 --> 00:43:59,000
Speaker 4: civil attitude toward all persons involved. Lawyers licensed to practice

685
00:43:59,080 --> 00:44:02,480
Speaker 4: law in Idaho are governed by the Idaho Rules of

686
00:44:02,520 --> 00:44:07,760
Speaker 4: Professional Conduct. Rule three point six A specifically states that

687
00:44:08,080 --> 00:44:12,239
Speaker 4: a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the

688
00:44:12,280 --> 00:44:16,319
Speaker 4: investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an

689
00:44:16,400 --> 00:44:21,160
Speaker 4: extra judicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know,

690
00:44:21,600 --> 00:44:25,279
Speaker 4: will be disseminated by means of public communication, and will

691
00:44:25,280 --> 00:44:30,719
Speaker 4: have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing and adjudicative proceeding

692
00:44:30,800 --> 00:44:34,439
Speaker 4: in the matter. Comment five to Rule three point six

693
00:44:34,800 --> 00:44:38,480
Speaker 4: gives specific examples of subjects that are more likely than

694
00:44:38,520 --> 00:44:42,320
Speaker 4: not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding,

695
00:44:42,360 --> 00:44:45,959
Speaker 4: particularly when they refer to a criminal matter or any

696
00:44:45,960 --> 00:44:54,120
Speaker 4: other proceeding that could result in incarceration. One the character, credibility, reputation,

697
00:44:54,440 --> 00:44:58,160
Speaker 4: or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation,

698
00:44:58,320 --> 00:45:01,239
Speaker 4: or witness, or the idea entity of a witness, or

699
00:45:01,400 --> 00:45:05,440
Speaker 4: the expected testimony of a party or witness. Two in

700
00:45:05,480 --> 00:45:09,120
Speaker 4: a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration,

701
00:45:09,640 --> 00:45:12,520
Speaker 4: the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense,

702
00:45:12,760 --> 00:45:17,080
Speaker 4: or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or

703
00:45:17,239 --> 00:45:20,720
Speaker 4: statement given by a defendant or suspect, or that person's

704
00:45:20,760 --> 00:45:25,399
Speaker 4: refusal or failure to make a statement. Three the performance

705
00:45:25,560 --> 00:45:29,200
Speaker 4: or results of any examination or test, or the refusal

706
00:45:29,280 --> 00:45:32,960
Speaker 4: or failure of a person to submit to any examination

707
00:45:33,120 --> 00:45:36,880
Speaker 4: or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence

708
00:45:36,920 --> 00:45:41,440
Speaker 4: expected to be presented. Four any opinion as to the

709
00:45:41,560 --> 00:45:44,520
Speaker 4: guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a

710
00:45:44,560 --> 00:45:49,160
Speaker 4: criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration. Five

711
00:45:49,760 --> 00:45:54,239
Speaker 4: Information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is

712
00:45:54,480 --> 00:45:58,200
Speaker 4: likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial that would,

713
00:45:58,280 --> 00:46:02,920
Speaker 4: if disclosed, create a tancial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

714
00:46:03,120 --> 00:46:07,240
Speaker 4: Or six the fact that a defendant has been charged

715
00:46:07,280 --> 00:46:12,239
Speaker 4: with a crime, unless there is excluded therein a statement

716
00:46:12,520 --> 00:46:16,200
Speaker 4: explained that the charge is merely an accusation, and that

717
00:46:16,239 --> 00:46:20,400
Speaker 4: the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

718
00:46:22,160 --> 00:46:26,360
Speaker 4: Bag twenty two. Rule three point six also expressly allows

719
00:46:26,440 --> 00:46:29,879
Speaker 4: lawyers participating in a matter to state the following one

720
00:46:30,520 --> 00:46:35,680
Speaker 4: the claim, offense or defense involved, and accept when prohibited

721
00:46:35,680 --> 00:46:40,200
Speaker 4: by law, the identity of the persons involved. Two information

722
00:46:40,480 --> 00:46:45,080
Speaker 4: contained in a public record. Three that an investigation of

723
00:46:45,120 --> 00:46:49,520
Speaker 4: a matter is in progress. Four the scheduling or result

724
00:46:49,640 --> 00:46:54,880
Speaker 4: of any step in litigation. Five a request for assistance

725
00:46:54,920 --> 00:47:00,960
Speaker 4: in obtaining evidence and information necessary. There too, a warning

726
00:47:00,960 --> 00:47:04,600
Speaker 4: of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved when

727
00:47:04,880 --> 00:47:07,040
Speaker 4: there is a reason to believe that there exists the

728
00:47:07,200 --> 00:47:10,480
Speaker 4: likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the

729
00:47:10,480 --> 00:47:13,840
Speaker 4: public interest and seven in a criminal case, in addition

730
00:47:13,960 --> 00:47:19,600
Speaker 4: to sub paragraphs one through six, rom numeral one the identity, residence, occupation,

731
00:47:19,719 --> 00:47:23,359
Speaker 4: and family status of the accused Roman numeral two, if

732
00:47:23,360 --> 00:47:27,239
Speaker 4: the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid

733
00:47:27,320 --> 00:47:31,040
Speaker 4: an apprehension of that person, Roman Numeral three, the fact,

734
00:47:31,280 --> 00:47:35,520
Speaker 4: time and place of arrest, and romnumeral fourth the identity

735
00:47:35,640 --> 00:47:39,560
Speaker 4: of investigating and arresting officers or agencies, and the length

736
00:47:39,760 --> 00:47:43,560
Speaker 4: of the investigation. Comment one to Rule three point six

737
00:47:43,640 --> 00:47:46,880
Speaker 4: recognizes the difficulty in striking a balance between protecting the

738
00:47:46,960 --> 00:47:49,400
Speaker 4: right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of

739
00:47:49,440 --> 00:47:53,400
Speaker 4: free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily

740
00:47:53,600 --> 00:47:57,279
Speaker 4: entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated

741
00:47:57,320 --> 00:48:00,400
Speaker 4: about a party prior to trial, particularly where the trial

742
00:48:00,560 --> 00:48:04,000
Speaker 4: by jury is involved. Similarly, Comment six to Rule three

743
00:48:04,000 --> 00:48:07,759
Speaker 4: point six states that criminal jury trials will be most

744
00:48:07,800 --> 00:48:12,719
Speaker 4: sensitive to extra judicial speech. The American Bar Association has

745
00:48:12,840 --> 00:48:17,279
Speaker 4: also promulgated standards for conduct of attorneys. Standards eight DASH

746
00:48:17,400 --> 00:48:20,960
Speaker 4: two point one governs the conduct of lawyers participating in

747
00:48:21,000 --> 00:48:24,520
Speaker 4: a criminal matter. Standard eight DASH two point one reads

748
00:48:24,680 --> 00:48:28,880
Speaker 4: a subject to any additional limitations imposed by local or

749
00:48:28,920 --> 00:48:32,239
Speaker 4: professional rules. During the dependency of a criminal matter, a

750
00:48:32,320 --> 00:48:35,920
Speaker 4: lawyer participating in that criminal matter should not make cause

751
00:48:35,960 --> 00:48:39,440
Speaker 4: to be made, condone, or authorize the making of a

752
00:48:39,600 --> 00:48:43,960
Speaker 4: public extra judicial statement that if the lawyer knows or

753
00:48:44,000 --> 00:48:47,759
Speaker 4: reasonably should know, that, it will have a substantial likelihood

754
00:48:47,880 --> 00:48:54,320
Speaker 4: of influencing the outcome of that or any related criminal trial,

755
00:48:54,480 --> 00:48:59,960
Speaker 4: or prejudicing the jury veneer, even if an untainted panel

756
00:49:00,160 --> 00:49:04,280
Speaker 4: ultimately can be found Page twenty three. Remnumeral two unnecessarily

757
00:49:04,320 --> 00:49:07,560
Speaker 4: heightening public condemnation of a defendant or a person or

758
00:49:07,760 --> 00:49:11,000
Speaker 4: entity who has been publicly identified in the context of

759
00:49:11,040 --> 00:49:15,000
Speaker 4: a criminal investigation, or of a witness or victim, or

760
00:49:15,280 --> 00:49:20,280
Speaker 4: Remnumeral three undermining the public's respect for the judicial process

761
00:49:20,480 --> 00:49:24,000
Speaker 4: ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, fair Trial, and public discourse

762
00:49:24,200 --> 00:49:29,680
Speaker 4: for the Edition twenty sixteen five analysis. While only the

763
00:49:29,840 --> 00:49:34,480
Speaker 4: occasional case presents a danger of prejudice from pre trial publicity,

764
00:49:35,480 --> 00:49:38,359
Speaker 4: this case, as recognized by the Idaho of Supreme Court,

765
00:49:38,719 --> 00:49:44,520
Speaker 4: has drawn widespread publicity, garnering worldwide media attention and much speculation,

766
00:49:44,880 --> 00:49:49,160
Speaker 4: and therefore pre trial publicity does present a real danger

767
00:49:49,280 --> 00:49:53,520
Speaker 4: of prejudice. In petition for a rid of mandamness or

768
00:49:53,600 --> 00:49:57,239
Speaker 4: rid of prohibition number five zero four eight two two

769
00:49:57,320 --> 00:49:59,960
Speaker 4: zero two three w L three zero five zero ex

770
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:03,319
Speaker 4: eight two nine at star I, Idaho, April twenty four

771
00:50:03,360 --> 00:50:06,920
Speaker 4: to twenty twenty three. Recognizing the high profile nature of

772
00:50:06,960 --> 00:50:10,600
Speaker 4: the case and extensive coverage it has received, along with

773
00:50:10,680 --> 00:50:14,480
Speaker 4: the need to minimize possible pre trial prejudice, the party

774
00:50:14,600 --> 00:50:18,520
Speaker 4: stipulated to entry of the original non dissemination order and

775
00:50:18,560 --> 00:50:22,240
Speaker 4: the amended non dissemination order, as was noted by District

776
00:50:22,320 --> 00:50:26,200
Speaker 4: Judge Stephen W. Boyce in his memorandum decision on ordering

777
00:50:26,280 --> 00:50:30,080
Speaker 4: prohibiting video and photographic coverage in the case of State

778
00:50:30,120 --> 00:50:34,400
Speaker 4: of Idaho versus Lori Noreen Ballo aka Lori Nereene Balot

779
00:50:34,440 --> 00:50:37,840
Speaker 4: de bel agreement between the State and defense on any

780
00:50:37,880 --> 00:50:41,440
Speaker 4: issue in a capital case is rare. Further confirming to

781
00:50:41,560 --> 00:50:45,400
Speaker 4: the court the legitimacy and level of concern Council have raised,

782
00:50:45,800 --> 00:50:49,520
Speaker 4: the same is true in this instance. One. This court

783
00:50:49,600 --> 00:50:53,200
Speaker 4: has an obligation to take measures to ensure Coburger's right

784
00:50:53,280 --> 00:50:58,280
Speaker 4: to a fair trial, including proscribing potentially prejudicial extra judicial

785
00:50:58,280 --> 00:51:02,320
Speaker 4: statements by any lawyer part ti pticipating in the case few,

786
00:51:02,480 --> 00:51:06,960
Speaker 4: if any, interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than

787
00:51:07,000 --> 00:51:10,600
Speaker 4: the right to affair trial by impartial jurors, and an

788
00:51:10,640 --> 00:51:16,399
Speaker 4: outcome affected by extra judicial statements would violate that fundamental right.

789
00:51:16,640 --> 00:51:20,239
Speaker 4: This Court also recognizes the Page twenty four important role

790
00:51:20,280 --> 00:51:23,680
Speaker 4: the press plays in the judicial system. A responsible press

791
00:51:23,719 --> 00:51:27,879
Speaker 4: has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration,

792
00:51:28,320 --> 00:51:31,960
Speaker 4: especially in the criminal field. However, with the advent of

793
00:51:32,000 --> 00:51:35,600
Speaker 4: the Internet and social media, the tensions between the First

794
00:51:35,640 --> 00:51:38,920
Speaker 4: Amendment and the sixth Amendment continue to increase. As was

795
00:51:38,920 --> 00:51:42,319
Speaker 4: outlined in Shepherds, trial courts must take strong measures to

796
00:51:42,400 --> 00:51:45,560
Speaker 4: ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused.

797
00:51:46,160 --> 00:51:49,640
Speaker 4: In this case, the amended non dissemination order in place

798
00:51:49,760 --> 00:51:52,880
Speaker 4: by the party's stipulation to protect Coburger's right to affair

799
00:51:52,920 --> 00:51:56,160
Speaker 4: trial is not directed toward the press at all. Like

800
00:51:56,239 --> 00:51:59,719
Speaker 4: in radio Intellivision News, the amended non dissemination order is

801
00:51:59,760 --> 00:52:03,360
Speaker 4: amimimed at attorneys participating in the case and their agents,

802
00:52:03,360 --> 00:52:06,080
Speaker 4: such as law enforcement. The US Supreme Court is made

803
00:52:06,160 --> 00:52:10,120
Speaker 4: clear that a trial court can prescribe extra judicial statements

804
00:52:10,120 --> 00:52:14,560
Speaker 4: by any lawyer, party witness, or court official which divulged

805
00:52:14,760 --> 00:52:18,600
Speaker 4: pre judicial matters. By doing so, the trial court can

806
00:52:18,640 --> 00:52:22,240
Speaker 4: help to insure a trial free from outside influence without

807
00:52:22,320 --> 00:52:26,759
Speaker 4: corresponding curtailment of the news media. Such restraining orders raise

808
00:52:26,800 --> 00:52:29,960
Speaker 4: a freedom of the press issue that is analytically distinct

809
00:52:29,960 --> 00:52:34,000
Speaker 4: from prior restraints on the media. Non dissemination orders that

810
00:52:34,120 --> 00:52:37,760
Speaker 4: restrain the speech of lawyers representing clients in pending cases

811
00:52:38,080 --> 00:52:41,279
Speaker 4: may be regulated under a less demanding standard than that

812
00:52:41,480 --> 00:52:44,560
Speaker 4: established for a regulation of the press. In Nebraska Press

813
00:52:44,560 --> 00:52:49,040
Speaker 4: Association b. Stewart, Lawyers, Page twenty five have a fiduciary

814
00:52:49,120 --> 00:52:52,360
Speaker 4: responsibility not to engage in public debate that will redound

815
00:52:52,360 --> 00:52:55,280
Speaker 4: to the detriment of the accused or that will obstruct

816
00:52:55,280 --> 00:52:58,560
Speaker 4: the fair administration of justice. In a case as high

817
00:52:58,640 --> 00:53:01,880
Speaker 4: profile as this one, a non dissemination order echoing the

818
00:53:01,920 --> 00:53:04,640
Speaker 4: responsibilities of a lawyer found in the Idaho Rules of

819
00:53:04,680 --> 00:53:08,720
Speaker 4: Professional Conduct does not violate the attorney's First Amendment rights.

820
00:53:09,000 --> 00:53:12,400
Speaker 4: The parties have a legitimate concern about information being disseminated

821
00:53:12,440 --> 00:53:16,360
Speaker 4: to the media by way of attorneys participating in the case. Obviously,

822
00:53:16,719 --> 00:53:19,920
Speaker 4: the state and the defense are privy to confidential information,

823
00:53:20,320 --> 00:53:23,399
Speaker 4: but so to our attorneys representing a victim's family or

824
00:53:23,440 --> 00:53:27,840
Speaker 4: a witness, as noted by the Court Engineteel, because lawyers

825
00:53:27,880 --> 00:53:32,400
Speaker 4: have a special access to information through discovery and client communications,

826
00:53:32,760 --> 00:53:36,000
Speaker 4: their extra judicial statements pose the threat to the fairness

827
00:53:36,000 --> 00:53:39,239
Speaker 4: of opending proceedings, since lawyer's statements are likely to be

828
00:53:39,320 --> 00:53:43,840
Speaker 4: received as especially authoritative. This concern was echoed by defense

829
00:53:43,920 --> 00:53:48,439
Speaker 4: expert doctor l Alealey, who opined that commentary by individuals

830
00:53:48,480 --> 00:53:53,279
Speaker 4: with status slash expertise, eg. Police attorneys and judges in

831
00:53:53,440 --> 00:53:57,520
Speaker 4: media coverage create more potential for bias jurors Exhibit D

832
00:53:57,760 --> 00:54:01,640
Speaker 4: to defendant's objection to media's and to vacate the amended

833
00:54:01,680 --> 00:54:05,040
Speaker 4: non dissemination order. Membership in the bar is a privilege

834
00:54:05,120 --> 00:54:09,319
Speaker 4: burdened with conditions requiring attorneys involved in the case to

835
00:54:09,440 --> 00:54:13,520
Speaker 4: comply with IRPC three point six, as echoed in the

836
00:54:13,560 --> 00:54:17,879
Speaker 4: revised Amended non Dissemination Order, is not unreasonable and does

837
00:54:17,960 --> 00:54:22,040
Speaker 4: not unconstitutionally impinge upon the First Amendment. This Court has

838
00:54:22,080 --> 00:54:25,920
Speaker 4: an obligation to help protect Coburger's constitutional right to affair trial,

839
00:54:26,040 --> 00:54:29,120
Speaker 4: and this is just one measure that the US Supreme

840
00:54:29,200 --> 00:54:32,520
Speaker 4: Court has endorsed in appropriate cases to help ensure the

841
00:54:32,560 --> 00:54:36,520
Speaker 4: Sixth Amendment is not violated. Thus, this Court has the

842
00:54:36,560 --> 00:54:41,360
Speaker 4: authority to restrain prejudicial speech by attorneys participating in the case,

843
00:54:41,480 --> 00:54:45,360
Speaker 4: Page twenty six two. Strict scrutiny does not apply to

844
00:54:45,440 --> 00:54:49,160
Speaker 4: the media's constitutional challenge of the amended non Dissemination Order.

845
00:54:49,560 --> 00:54:52,560
Speaker 4: When the media challenges in order restraining the speech of

846
00:54:52,640 --> 00:54:56,080
Speaker 4: lawyers participating in a pending case, the court need only

847
00:54:56,160 --> 00:54:59,600
Speaker 4: examine whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable and whether the

848
00:54:59,640 --> 00:55:03,400
Speaker 4: interest of the government override the very limited incidental effects

849
00:55:03,440 --> 00:55:07,120
Speaker 4: of the order on First Amendment rights. The restrictions imposed

850
00:55:07,200 --> 00:55:10,759
Speaker 4: also must not serve an illegitimate purpose. This is not

851
00:55:10,920 --> 00:55:14,520
Speaker 4: strict scrutiny. The rationale for a lower standard of constitutional

852
00:55:14,560 --> 00:55:17,759
Speaker 4: review is because the impact on the media is significantly

853
00:55:17,800 --> 00:55:21,400
Speaker 4: different from situations where the media is denied access to

854
00:55:21,440 --> 00:55:25,400
Speaker 4: a criminal trial or is restricted in disseminating any information

855
00:55:25,520 --> 00:55:28,960
Speaker 4: it obtains. Strict scrutiny would apply in such a case.

856
00:55:29,400 --> 00:55:31,920
Speaker 4: While the press does have a right of access or

857
00:55:32,040 --> 00:55:35,560
Speaker 4: write to gather information with respect to criminal trials, that

858
00:55:35,680 --> 00:55:40,160
Speaker 4: right is described only as a right to sit, listen, watch,

859
00:55:40,480 --> 00:55:44,600
Speaker 4: and report. The media's desire to obtain access to certain

860
00:55:44,640 --> 00:55:48,640
Speaker 4: sources of information that otherwise might be available is not

861
00:55:48,680 --> 00:55:51,960
Speaker 4: a sufficient interest to establish an infringement of freedom of

862
00:55:52,000 --> 00:55:55,919
Speaker 4: the press in this case. As such, strict scrutiny does

863
00:55:56,000 --> 00:56:00,840
Speaker 4: not apply. Three. The restrictions on the extra utidial statements

864
00:56:00,880 --> 00:56:04,160
Speaker 4: of counsel and their agents to the press are necessary

865
00:56:04,200 --> 00:56:07,880
Speaker 4: to reduce prejudicial publicity and protect Coburger's right to a

866
00:56:07,960 --> 00:56:12,200
Speaker 4: fair trial. The evidence presented by the defense shows that one,

867
00:56:12,480 --> 00:56:16,080
Speaker 4: media coverage in this case is rampant ongoing. Two at

868
00:56:16,160 --> 00:56:18,759
Speaker 4: least some, if not most, of the news coverage is

869
00:56:18,840 --> 00:56:22,960
Speaker 4: prejudicial to Coburger. Three a portion of the statements being

870
00:56:22,960 --> 00:56:25,959
Speaker 4: made to the media are coming from an attorney participating

871
00:56:26,000 --> 00:56:30,200
Speaker 4: in the case. Four Vacating the non dissemination order would

872
00:56:30,200 --> 00:56:34,160
Speaker 4: increase the potential for bias among prospective jurors, both initially

873
00:56:34,239 --> 00:56:38,160
Speaker 4: and throughout the trial. And five anti defendant pre trial

874
00:56:38,200 --> 00:56:42,520
Speaker 4: publicity increases the probability of guilty verdicts, and that this

875
00:56:42,560 --> 00:56:47,160
Speaker 4: bias persists despite the page twenty seven Page twenty seven

876
00:56:48,040 --> 00:56:53,080
Speaker 4: receipt of trial argument slash evidence ambunitions to disregard the publicity, information,

877
00:56:53,480 --> 00:56:58,160
Speaker 4: and jury deliberation commentary by individuals with status slash expertise

878
00:56:58,480 --> 00:57:02,800
Speaker 4: e g. Police attorneys and judges in the media coverage

879
00:57:02,840 --> 00:57:07,680
Speaker 4: create more potential for biased jurors. Exhibit D to defend

880
00:57:07,680 --> 00:57:11,040
Speaker 4: its objection to media's mot to vacate the Amended Non

881
00:57:11,080 --> 00:57:15,520
Speaker 4: Dissemination Order. As currently drafted, the Amended Non Dissemination Order

882
00:57:15,640 --> 00:57:19,720
Speaker 4: is arguably overbroad and vague in some areas. However, it

883
00:57:19,760 --> 00:57:22,960
Speaker 4: does deserve as legitimate purpose, and restricting the speech of

884
00:57:23,000 --> 00:57:27,000
Speaker 4: attorneys participating in the case is reasonable. The very limited

885
00:57:27,000 --> 00:57:30,160
Speaker 4: incidental effects of the speech restrictions on the media's First

886
00:57:30,160 --> 00:57:33,520
Speaker 4: Amendment rights are overridden by the compelling interest in ensuring

887
00:57:33,600 --> 00:57:37,080
Speaker 4: a fair trial by an impartial jury. Statements by council

888
00:57:37,160 --> 00:57:40,320
Speaker 4: participating in the case on matters bearing on the merits

889
00:57:40,360 --> 00:57:43,160
Speaker 4: of the case might impair the fairness of the trial

890
00:57:43,360 --> 00:57:47,520
Speaker 4: or threaten the integrity of the judicial process. The Amended

891
00:57:47,560 --> 00:57:50,880
Speaker 4: Non Dissemination Order is not intended to conceal the workings

892
00:57:50,880 --> 00:57:54,080
Speaker 4: of the criminal justice system from the public. The media

893
00:57:54,240 --> 00:57:56,880
Speaker 4: is not restrained in any way and is free to

894
00:57:56,920 --> 00:57:59,680
Speaker 4: attend hearings and report on what they observe and hear.

895
00:58:00,200 --> 00:58:03,240
Speaker 4: For these reasons, the media's request that the Amended Non

896
00:58:03,280 --> 00:58:08,320
Speaker 4: Dissemination Order be vacated is denied. However, because the amended

897
00:58:08,360 --> 00:58:11,920
Speaker 4: non Dissemination Order is arguably over broad and vague. The

898
00:58:11,960 --> 00:58:15,840
Speaker 4: Court will issue a revised amended non Dissemination Order to

899
00:58:16,000 --> 00:58:20,040
Speaker 4: further clarify and narrow what speech by lawyers participating in

900
00:58:20,080 --> 00:58:23,160
Speaker 4: the case and their agents is allowed and prohibited by

901
00:58:23,200 --> 00:58:28,280
Speaker 4: giving specific examples. The revised Amended non Dissemination Order is

902
00:58:28,360 --> 00:58:32,440
Speaker 4: narrowly drawn to prohibit only extra judicial statements that have

903
00:58:32,560 --> 00:58:37,560
Speaker 4: a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing this case. The restriction

904
00:58:37,680 --> 00:58:41,320
Speaker 4: on attorney speech applies equally to all attorneys participating in

905
00:58:41,360 --> 00:58:45,000
Speaker 4: the pending case and will restrict the attorney's comments only

906
00:58:45,080 --> 00:58:49,400
Speaker 4: until after the trial and any sentencing proceedings. The regulation

907
00:58:49,520 --> 00:58:54,400
Speaker 4: of attorneys speech meets the Page twenty eight less demanding

908
00:58:54,400 --> 00:58:57,760
Speaker 4: standards set forth in Genteel, as well as strict scrutiny.

909
00:58:58,160 --> 00:59:01,640
Speaker 4: The restrictions are necessary to protect Coburger's right to a

910
00:59:01,640 --> 00:59:05,360
Speaker 4: fair trial and the fair administration of justice. As to

911
00:59:05,440 --> 00:59:09,840
Speaker 4: the media's constitutional challenge, the restrictions imposed on attorneys participating

912
00:59:09,840 --> 00:59:12,800
Speaker 4: in the case and their agents are not only reasonable

913
00:59:12,840 --> 00:59:16,120
Speaker 4: and legitimate considering the high profile nature of this case,

914
00:59:16,640 --> 00:59:21,920
Speaker 4: but also meet the strict scrutiney standard sixth conclusion the

915
00:59:22,000 --> 00:59:25,440
Speaker 4: Associated Press requests that the amended non dissemination Order be

916
00:59:25,560 --> 00:59:30,400
Speaker 4: vacated is denied. However, the revised Amended non Dissemination Order

917
00:59:30,480 --> 00:59:34,440
Speaker 4: will replace the amended non Dissemination Order and will clarify

918
00:59:34,520 --> 00:59:37,760
Speaker 4: and narrow the restrictions on speech and the individuals whose

919
00:59:37,800 --> 00:59:40,960
Speaker 4: speech is restrained. So ordered this twenty third day of

920
00:59:41,040 --> 01:00:07,160
Speaker 4: June twenty twenty three, signed John C. Judge, District Judge.

921
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:01,880
Speaker 1: Some stories with Nancy Grace.

922
01:00:03,120 --> 01:00:05,800
Speaker 4: In the District Court of the Second Judicial District of

923
01:00:05,840 --> 01:00:08,440
Speaker 4: the State of Idaho and in for the County of Leatah,

924
01:00:08,720 --> 01:00:12,360
Speaker 4: State of Idaho, Plaintiff versus Brian C. Coburger, Defendant case

925
01:00:12,440 --> 01:00:15,080
Speaker 4: number c R two nine Dash two two DASH two

926
01:00:15,120 --> 01:00:19,800
Speaker 4: A zero five Revised Amended Non Dissemination Order as discussed

927
01:00:19,840 --> 01:00:23,200
Speaker 4: in detail in this Court's order denying Shanning Gray's request

928
01:00:23,280 --> 01:00:26,280
Speaker 4: to be exempt from the amended non Dissemination Order and

929
01:00:26,440 --> 01:00:29,960
Speaker 4: granting requests that the order be clarified, and this Court's

930
01:00:30,120 --> 01:00:33,840
Speaker 4: order denying the Associated Press's motion to vacate the Amended

931
01:00:33,880 --> 01:00:37,080
Speaker 4: non Dissemination Order. The Court must attempt to balance the

932
01:00:37,160 --> 01:00:39,880
Speaker 4: sixth Amendment right to a fair trial with the First

933
01:00:39,920 --> 01:00:43,360
Speaker 4: Amendment rights to free speech and free press. To preserve

934
01:00:43,440 --> 01:00:46,040
Speaker 4: the right to a fair trial, some curtailment of the

935
01:00:46,080 --> 01:00:49,920
Speaker 4: dissemination of information in this case is necessary and authorized

936
01:00:50,200 --> 01:00:55,920
Speaker 4: under the law. Therefore, the following is ordered. One. Prosecuting attorneys,

937
01:00:55,920 --> 01:01:00,000
Speaker 4: defense attorneys, any agents of the prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys,

938
01:01:00,040 --> 01:01:03,680
Speaker 4: and any attorneys representing witnesses, victims, or a victim's family

939
01:01:04,120 --> 01:01:08,880
Speaker 4: are prohibited from making extra judicial statements written or oral

940
01:01:09,280 --> 01:01:13,680
Speaker 4: that the Page two lawyer or agent knows or reasonably

941
01:01:13,720 --> 01:01:18,560
Speaker 4: should know, will have substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing or

942
01:01:18,640 --> 01:01:22,480
Speaker 4: otherwise influencing the outcome of the case. This order specifically

943
01:01:22,520 --> 01:01:26,000
Speaker 4: prohibits any out of court statement which a reasonable person

944
01:01:26,040 --> 01:01:28,960
Speaker 4: would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication

945
01:01:29,040 --> 01:01:32,480
Speaker 4: that relates to the following a the identity or nature

946
01:01:32,520 --> 01:01:35,560
Speaker 4: of evidence expected to be presented at trial or any

947
01:01:35,600 --> 01:01:39,720
Speaker 4: sentencing phase of the proceedings. B Any information a lawyer

948
01:01:39,800 --> 01:01:43,320
Speaker 4: knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible

949
01:01:43,360 --> 01:01:46,120
Speaker 4: as evidence in a trial, and that would, if disclosed,

950
01:01:46,160 --> 01:01:50,120
Speaker 4: create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial jury. C

951
01:01:50,920 --> 01:01:54,600
Speaker 4: The character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party, victim,

952
01:01:54,720 --> 01:01:59,120
Speaker 4: or witness. D the identity of a witness e, the

953
01:01:59,240 --> 01:02:03,360
Speaker 4: expected test stimony of a party, victim or witness. F

954
01:02:03,760 --> 01:02:07,040
Speaker 4: The performance or results of any examination or test, or

955
01:02:07,080 --> 01:02:09,880
Speaker 4: the refusal or failure of the defendant or a witness

956
01:02:10,080 --> 01:02:14,200
Speaker 4: to submit to an examination or test. G. Any opinion

957
01:02:14,320 --> 01:02:17,080
Speaker 4: as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. H.

958
01:02:17,560 --> 01:02:20,400
Speaker 4: The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offenses,

959
01:02:20,520 --> 01:02:24,960
Speaker 4: or any comment on any plea discussions. I. The existence

960
01:02:25,080 --> 01:02:29,400
Speaker 4: of or contents of any confession, admission, or statement by

961
01:02:29,400 --> 01:02:32,200
Speaker 4: the defendant, or the refusal of the defendant to make

962
01:02:32,240 --> 01:02:38,120
Speaker 4: any statement. J. Any information obtained by witnesses, the victim's families,

963
01:02:38,200 --> 01:02:40,960
Speaker 4: or their attorneys from the state that is confidential and

964
01:02:41,000 --> 01:02:44,840
Speaker 4: has not been publicly disclosed by the prosecuting attorneys. Two

965
01:02:45,080 --> 01:02:48,440
Speaker 4: attorneys involved in the case and their agents, as outlined

966
01:02:48,440 --> 01:02:52,880
Speaker 4: in paragraph one, may make extra judicial statements, written or oral,

967
01:02:52,960 --> 01:02:57,480
Speaker 4: concerning the following A the claim, offense, or defense involved

968
01:02:57,520 --> 01:03:00,560
Speaker 4: in except when prohibited by law, the identity of the

969
01:03:00,640 --> 01:03:05,080
Speaker 4: parties involved. B information contained in the public record. C

970
01:03:05,840 --> 01:03:10,520
Speaker 4: that an investigation is ongoing. D this scheduling or result

971
01:03:10,640 --> 01:03:15,480
Speaker 4: of any step in the litigation. Page three. E A

972
01:03:15,560 --> 01:03:18,600
Speaker 4: request for assistance from the public in obtaining evidence an

973
01:03:18,600 --> 01:03:22,600
Speaker 4: information necessary to the state's case or the defense's case. F.

974
01:03:23,080 --> 01:03:25,840
Speaker 4: A warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person

975
01:03:25,920 --> 01:03:28,520
Speaker 4: involved when there is a reason to believe that there

976
01:03:28,600 --> 01:03:32,240
Speaker 4: exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or

977
01:03:32,280 --> 01:03:37,160
Speaker 4: to the public interest. G. The identity, residence, occupation, and

978
01:03:37,240 --> 01:03:42,120
Speaker 4: family status of the accused, h the fact, time and

979
01:03:42,200 --> 01:03:47,240
Speaker 4: place of arrest, I, the identity of investigating and arresting

980
01:03:47,240 --> 01:03:50,560
Speaker 4: officers or agencies, and the length of the investigation.

981
01:03:50,880 --> 01:03:51,680
Speaker 1: And J.

982
01:03:52,600 --> 01:03:56,040
Speaker 4: A statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required

983
01:03:56,080 --> 01:03:59,640
Speaker 4: to protect a client from the substantial, undue, prejudicial effect

984
01:03:59,800 --> 01:04:03,160
Speaker 4: of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the

985
01:04:03,240 --> 01:04:06,919
Speaker 4: lawyer's client. Any such statement shall be limited to such

986
01:04:06,960 --> 01:04:11,160
Speaker 4: information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. Three.

987
01:04:11,720 --> 01:04:15,760
Speaker 4: No individual covered by this revised amended non Dissemination Order

988
01:04:16,000 --> 01:04:20,440
Speaker 4: shall deliberately avoid its prescriptions by actions directly or indirectly

989
01:04:20,720 --> 01:04:24,880
Speaker 4: that result in violating this order. For this revised Amended

990
01:04:24,920 --> 01:04:27,960
Speaker 4: non Dissemination Order shall remain in full force and effect

991
01:04:28,040 --> 01:04:31,800
Speaker 4: until the conclusion of a trial and any sentencing proceedings

992
01:04:31,800 --> 01:04:35,400
Speaker 4: that may follow, unless otherwise ordered by this Court, So

993
01:04:35,680 --> 01:04:38,400
Speaker 4: ordered this twenty third day of June twenty twenty three,

994
01:04:38,920 --> 01:04:41,680
Speaker 4: John C. Judge, District Judge

995
01:04:41,960 --> 01:04:45,760
Speaker 2: Nancy Grace signing off goodbye friend,