[Cubs Fan]

--Both of these address admissiblity, not confidentiality.--

As I said before your baised interpretations aren't worth squat. Cite case law.


" why do you think that ongoing plea negotiations have never been publicly revealed before under the sunshine law? "

---Unless you KNOW, don't guess

I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process. If your so good at looking things up go find where longtermmemmory pointed that out to you.

[RS]

"I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process."

How do you taint a jury pool with Rush's offer of NOTHING, and the SAO's counter with what they would probably be charging him with anyway ?

[RS]

"As I said before your baised interpretations aren't worth squat. Cite case law. "

Huh ? Maybe because both of them SAY addmisability and neither of them say confidentiality ? Cite your own case law...


"I know, because doing so would tend to taint jury pools and endanger the plea process."

How do you taint a jury pool with Rush's offer of NOTHING, and the SAO's counter with what they would probably be charging him with anyway ?

[NonValueAdded]

The Sunshine Law is pretty wide open but if there is to be a closing of the window in Rush's case, FRCP 3.171 [emphasis added]

RULE 3.171. PLEA DISCUSSIONS AND AGREEMENTS (a) In General. Ultimate responsibility for sentence determination rests with the trial judge. However, the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney, or the defendant when representing himself or herself, are encouraged to discuss and to agree on pleas that may be entered by a defendant. The discussion and agreement must be conducted with the defendant’s counsel. If the defendant represents himself or herself, all discussions between the defendant and the prosecuting attorney shall be of record.

indicates the court's obvious interest in keeping the docket size down. Note the last sentence of that 3.171 doesn't apply since Rush is represented by counsel. The Sunshine manual, Section E Rule 2.051, does give broad protection to the Judiciary and their proceedings. While the SAO is executive branch and this matter has not yet gone before the court, section 9 of 2.051 covers this:

(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that
(A) confidentiality is required to
(i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice;

Since Judiciary rules apply and lawyers are officers of the court, then we might be under the broad exemptions in the Sunshine Law for the judiciary (separation of powers reasons, etc.).

That's my last flog of this horse. If there isn't case law out there already on this, there will be. I don't see that there is a possiblity for the orderly administration of justice if plea negotiations, which we all violently agree are not evidence, are allowed to become evidence in the court of public opinion before the negotiations have even concluded. Heck, why not let the Enquirer put someone in each SAO's office to sit in on the negotiations otherwise.