Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge's level of secrecy in proceedings raises questions from experts
San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 9/24/02 | Greg Moran

Posted on 09/25/2002 6:50:25 AM PDT by Jaded

There were two trials of David Westerfield in the kidnap-murder of his 7-year-old neighbor. One that everyone saw, live on television. And one that no one saw because it was conducted in secret.

The public trial of Westerfield was the one with entomologists, cops and grieving parents. And then there was the other trial – the one with the man who said he heard a child scream from Westerfield's motor home and the woman who said she was date-raped.

Thursday, three days after a jury recommended that the 50-year-old design engineer be executed for kidnapping and murdering Danielle van Dam, transcripts from a large number of closed-door hearings were released. The 4th District Court of Appeal, acting on requests from the media, ordered the information made public, absent a compelling reason.

The transcripts detail what happened in 23 hearings Superior Court Judge William Mudd held in closed session when the trial was under way. Still locked away are transcripts from pretrial hearings and the motions that were filed.

Mudd has argued they should not be made public because the information in them would compromise Westerfield's right to a fair trial. Mudd asked the appeals court Friday for a delay to Oct. 22 and to be more specific.

Yesterday, Justice Richard Huffman gave Mudd until Oct. 7 and said Mudd will receive a clarification of exactly what he must unseal.The San Diego Union-Tribune and other news organizations have argued that all the secret information should be made public, particularly since the trial is over.

Because Westerfield's fair trial rights are no longer in play, Mudd does not have to weigh the competing constitutional interests of fair trial versus public access, and the transcripts and sealed motions should be released, said Jim Ewert, an attorney with the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

"It should all come out," he said. "The need to balance isn't there."

'Perry Mason courtroom' As new information surfaces, media experts and legal observers said one of the legacies of this trial will be Mudd's decision to conduct large portions of the proceedings out of public view. Terry Francke, a lawyer with the California First Amendment Coalition, said the restrictions Mudd imposed were the broadest he has encountered in more than 20 years.

Dean Nelson, a journalism professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, said Mudd should be applauded for permitting television broadcasts of the trial but that all the secrecy undercut that.

"What the public got was a Perry Mason courtroom," he said. "What they didn't see is that a good amount of this case went on in secrecy."

Mudd said he closed some hearings because he did not want the jury exposed to potentially inadmissible evidence. But that, legal experts said, is not a good reason.

Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and frequent commentator on legal issues, said such logic would mean arraignments, preliminary hearings and other parts of criminal cases would be closed.

Criminal proceedings are presumed to be open to the public. State law requires judges to hold hearings and make specific findings on the record that no other alternative is available before locking the doors.

The law recognizes that closed courtrooms and sealed transcripts "are the exception, not the rule," Levenson said.

But as the trial wore on, Mudd often simply announced the courtroom would be closed, without holding the required hearing. On at least one occasion, Mudd left the decision on whether to close a hearing up to the attorneys, according to a transcript of a closed hearing June 25.

Mudd told the lawyers the media had inquired whether a hearing in a few days would be open, according to the transcript. He said he had "no particular position on it, one way or the other." And then said to prosecutor George "Woody" Clarke, "That's going to be your bailiwick."

Clarke also said he did not have "strong feelings one way or the other." Then Mudd turned to defense attorney Steven Feldman, who commented that "every other hearing that's related to the admissibility of evidence" had been closed, and the coming hearing should also be closed.

"Well, I guess to be consistent, that's true," Mudd said, before ending the discussion by saying, "But, all right, we can keep it closed."

Such a casual discussion flies in the face of the law, said Tom Newton of the California Newspaper Publishers Association. He said the media recognizes that in some instances hearings have to be closed to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial or the privacy concerns of jurors.

"But all we ask is that it be done in an open manner, where the reasons for closing it can be tested," Newton said.

Mudd vs. media Mudd had a contentious relationship with the media throughout the trial. "I can't seem to have a day around here when I don't run head-on into the media," he lamented during a closed hearing Aug. 23. He frequently criticized the coverage, and belittled and lectured the media while jabbing his finger on national television. He banned a producer for a radio show from his courtroom with a curt, "Good day, madam," because he didn't like a report on the station detailing aclosed hearing.

He had the marshal's office running investigations into leaks to the media and a complaint that one juror was being followed.

He banned a Union-Tribune photographer forphotographing Brenda and Damon van Dam in the spectator section of the court. Mudd said the shot violated a court order.

The week he did so, however, the NBC program "Crime & Punishment" broadcast a trial, filmed months earlier in Mudd's courtroom, that frequently showed spectators in the gallery. In one instance, Mudd allowed the cameras to film the defendant and his mother, who was in the gallery, as they embraced.

The court file in that case shows Mudd approved coverage as long as it abided by the court rules hecited when he ejected the Union-Tribune photographer. No special allowance for filming the gallery was made, according to a check of court records.

Mudd did not respond to inquiries for an explanation about the apparent discrepancy in treatment.

Despite Mudd's complaints about the media in the Westerfield case, he seemed to consume the coverage as voraciously as anyone.

The transcripts are full of references to his watching broadcasts, reading articles, hearing reports. On June 26, he remarked to the attorneys that the previous night he had dutifully "surfed the channels."

Closing the courtrooms was more than just a dispute between the media and a single judge.

"The loser here is not the news media, but the general public," said Nelson, of the publishers' association, who faults the media for not explaining that the issue was one of public access – not media access – to the courts.

The appeals court Sept. 13 ordered Mudd to stop holding closed hearings unless he followed proper procedures, and directed him to release the transcripts of closed hearings.

By then, the jury was deliberating in the penalty phase. Though the ruling came too late to open proceedings in the Westerfield trial, it may have an effect on future high-profile cases.

Francke said the ruling rebuking Mudd might make other judges "have an awareness that says you have to be careful about how you handle those things."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 180frank; dance; pizza
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last
To: John Jamieson
I'm sure we'd have heard it if they did.
41 posted on 09/26/2002 6:41:42 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
Ah, yes, words of wisdom from the mouthpiece over there..... This is the same person who:

-Advertised that he wanted to be in court when they showed autopsy photos.

-Wrote Mudd an essay on why one of the jurors should be dismissed.

-Called or talked about calling Heather Mack's boss to try to get her fired.

-E-mailed either Dusek or Mudd about poster from a different forum. Has also suggested that this poster is an accomplice and he needs to be investigated. (Where do you think others got that idea? From his wisdom)

There are a couple of things about this that are odd.... Like DW is going to pour his heart out to LE. I think not.

Why would a sheriff's deputy share all this information with a whack job? Even risk violating the gag order?

At one time he posted a 3 part minute by minute scenario of what he believed happened.....

Oh and part of this contradicts what another person who claims to be on the inside has stated about the family. (too cryptic?)

Ya cain't ha' it both ways.
42 posted on 09/26/2002 6:53:07 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
What is with the W carved on the foreheads? What kind of whacky statement is that? Evidentally someone is willing to believe anything that confirms their own opinion. I am still wondering what really happened. There is no way that the police would not have taken Westerfield up on his offer to lead them to the body. So, that scenario just seems bogus to me.
43 posted on 09/26/2002 9:36:49 AM PDT by Lauratealeaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2; Mrs.Liberty; demsux; MizSterious; skipjackcity; RnMomof7; spectre; BARLF; FriarTom; ...
Woman admitted using with Danielle's parents

By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 26, 2002

The flight attendant who was fired after testifying in David Westerfield's trial that she had smoked marijuana with Danielle van Dam's parents got her job back this week.

Denise Kemal was reinstated as a flight attendant on Southwest Airlines after appealing the company's decision to fire her through internal grievance procedures, a company spokeswoman said yesterday.

Southwest, which has a zero-tolerance drug policy, fired Kemal in June after she testified in the nationally televised murder trial.

Reached yesterday, Kemal said getting her job back feels great, but declined to comment further. When she was fired, Kemal said it had ruined her life.

"I've always wanted to fly," she said.

"She just wants to put this behind her," said Tom McDaniel, president of Transport Workers Union Local 556, which represented Kemal in the proceedings.

The agreement doesn't provide back pay for Kemal and requires she undergo regular drug testing. She will return to work immediately.

Westerfield was convicted in August of kidnapping and killing the 7-year-old girl, whose parents last saw her alive Feb. 1. The same jury recommended he be executed, and his sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 22.

Kemal's marijuana smoking "would have never come out but for what he did," said San Diego attorney Spencer Busby, the van Dams' lawyer. He wrote a letter to Southwest on her behalf.

"She fulfilled her civic duty," he said yesterday. "It would be inappropriate to penalize her for testifying truthfully."

Kemal took the witness stand June 10, saying she visited the van Dam home Feb. 1 and spent the evening partying with Brenda van Dam. They became friends through their husbands, who both worked at Qualcomm, and Kemal testified they swapped spouses in 2000. Kemal and her husband have since divorced.

Kemal testified she and her neighbor Barbara Easton accompanied van Dam to Dad's Cafe & Steakhouse in Poway two Fridays in a row, Jan. 25 and Feb. 1. Westerfield was also at the bar, and bought them drinks on both occasions.

The women were celebrating Kemal's move to Baltimore, where she had been transferred for work. She testified she took a few puffs of a marijuana cigarette both nights.

In a July interview, Kemal said she didn't regularly smoke marijuana and that she'd passed all random drug tests during her 31/2-year Southwest employment.

She was a good employee, she said, and the airline regularly received letters from passengers commending her. Kemal said she often played games with children on flights and walked up and down the aisle entertaining fidgety babies.

The company also has a grievance procedure that allowed her to appeal the decision within 10 days. The company was required to respond within 10 days of the appeal.

Kemal took her appeal another step, and flew to Houston to present her case Tuesday to a board composed of two union members and two Southwest officials. An agreement that allowed her to return to work was reached before the hearing.

============================================================ So, it just goes to show that it doesn't matter what you do so long as you don't get caught. Even if you do get caught if you whine enough you can still get your job back.

I wonder if this applies to the drunk pilots?

44 posted on 09/26/2002 9:55:04 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Good grief! Drunk pilots, stoned attendants, and little old ladies get their embroidery scissors confiscated!
45 posted on 09/26/2002 10:04:55 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
After being strip searched!!!!!
46 posted on 09/26/2002 10:05:56 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Well that's "union mentality" too. Why a lot of union-boys in Jersey are for voting the Torch in -- they'd rather a felon in office than smeone honest who might presents a risk to their jobs.
47 posted on 09/26/2002 10:07:42 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
The flight attendant who was fired after testifying in David Westerfield's trial that she had smoked marijuana with Danielle van Dam's parents got her job back this week.

I just hope that when it's Denise's turn to close and lock the passenger door that somebody, heck anybody takes the time to double-check that door.

48 posted on 09/26/2002 10:08:25 AM PDT by CW_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CW_Conservative
I just hope that when it's Denise's turn to close and lock the passenger door that somebody, heck anybody takes the time to double-check that door.

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

49 posted on 09/26/2002 10:12:44 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: demsux
Makes you want to drive and risk facing the semi's instead of flying the friendly skies, doesn't it?
50 posted on 09/26/2002 10:15:32 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: pinz-n-needlez
Good grief! Drunk pilots, stoned attendants, and little old ladies get their embroidery scissors confiscated!

And don't forget to take away G.I. Joe's "rifle".
The bayonet mount, ya know --gotta be a terrorist !

52 posted on 09/26/2002 10:23:42 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
I've had to fly a bit lately, and I am sick and tired of the lines AND the moronic screeners wanding me and checking my shoes as "swarthy looking" individuals pass right by.

I'm in St. Louis, and if my drive time is 5 - 6 hours or less, I drive...over 6 hours and I'll endure the hassle and fly.

Breaks down like this: 1 1/2 hour early to airport each way plus about an hour in the air = 4 +/- hours...I'll take my car and endure the additional 1/2 hour.

53 posted on 09/26/2002 10:26:37 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: demsux
I bet the company is better in the car, too. :-)

Room for your legs, stop to use bathrooms when you want, food that's fit to eat all along the way.

Books on tape, music cd's and talk radio.

I'll drive almost anywhere.
54 posted on 09/26/2002 10:29:06 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
You betcha, now if I could only figure out how to freep from the car...
55 posted on 09/26/2002 10:32:20 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
That is soooooo sweet of the Van-Damned lawyer to write a letter for Duh-knees! Payback for testimony regarding the open garage door?
56 posted on 09/26/2002 10:35:57 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
whine,cheese and merrywanna.
57 posted on 09/26/2002 10:38:26 AM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BARLF
LOL-on SW it's beer,peanuts,merrywanna
58 posted on 09/26/2002 10:45:04 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Hi John. Hope you and your family are doing well. Glad you are in good health again.

The judge originally was ready to allow the phone call into evidence. Dusek then argued that the phone call could have been a prank, etc. so the judge agreed to keep it out.
Since they didn't explain the results of the search warrant, we can only assume they found nothing. Where/who was the search warrant for? Don't know. If the phone call traced back to a pay phone, it would prove nothing either way. Caller could have been real, could have been a prank.

Anyway, Dusek's argument swayed the judge in his favor.
59 posted on 09/26/2002 10:45:27 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit
Maybe it's me with the problem. Look around on other forums, they seem to see nothing wrong with what she did because, well she wasn't at work. I wonder if all of the passengers on 9/11 who were diverted would feel the same way about their flight attendants. I also wonder if so many feel that getting high, against company policy, is okay would feel the same way if it were, say a pilot? Would it then be okay for doctors and nurses, semi-truck drivers, people who operate the chemical plants scattered through out the states?

Sorry, rant off.

60 posted on 09/26/2002 10:48:37 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson