Posted on 03/31/2004 12:14:23 AM PST by JohnHuang2
The Supreme Court ruled today the federal government does not have to release four photos of former White House lawyer Vince Foster's dead body because it would cause pain to his family and intrude on their privacy.
The decision, which was unanimous, was the result of a request by attorney Allan Favish under the Freedom of Information Act for the release of autopsy and death-scene photos. Favish's request was part of his investigation into Foster's 1993 death, which has been officially ruled a suicide. Foster was a personal friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton and was working on several legal matters for them at the time of his death. His body was found in Fort Marcy Park, the victim of a gunshot wound.
"Family members have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek to accord to the deceased person who was once their own," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the decision.
According to an Associated Press report, the widow of racecar driver Dale Earnhardt had filed papers with the Supreme Court opposing the release of the photos of Foster's body. The Earnhardt family had worked in Florida courts to prevent public release of autopsy photographs of Earnhardt, who died in 2001 during the Daytona 500.
As WorldNetDaily reported, in 2002 Favish lost an attempt to have photos released when a federal appeals court ruled six of 10 Polaroids of the death scene would not be released. Its decision OK'ing the release of the other four photos was overturned by today's ruling.
Favish filed his original request for the photographs in a bid to learn whether Foster was truly a victim of suicide or whether he was murdered and dumped in the park, as some witnesses and independent researchers believe.
The Bush administration argued against the release of the photos, saying it could lead to the release of photos of dead servicemembers overseas or other sensitive information.
Kennedy argued a more open interpretation of the public-records law could allow child molesters and murderers access to photographs of deceased victims.
"We find it inconceivable that Congress could have intended a definition of 'personal privacy' so narrow that it would allow convicted felons to obtain these materials without limitations at the expense of surviving family members' personal privacy," he wrote.
The justice said there was no evidence the government covered up the facts surrounding Foster's death, so there was no reason to order release of the photos.
Over 100 photos related to the Foster matter have been made public.
what is that supposed to mean?
How many of these 100 were pictures of Foster? I only know of one, and that was just his hand. what were the others? as far as I know, none were of the actual crime scene itself.
Justices keep death photos private
Vincent Foster ruling restricts public access to law enforcement records
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
BY GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected a lawyer's pursuit of photos he contends might show Clinton administration lawyer Vincent Foster was murdered, concluding yesterday that privacy concerns often trump public disclosure when it comes to sensitive death pictures.
The decision set new hurdles for anyone attempting to force the federal government to open law enforcement files.
The court said when requested information includes post-mortem photographs or death scene information that could cause pain to someone's survivors, there must be some proof of government wrongdoing to justify the invasion of privacy.
Family members have a "personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead" without intrusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in the unanimous decision.
Foster's family and the Bush administration had together battled to keep the pictures private.
They were supported at the Supreme Court by the widow of race car driver Dale Earnhardt, who has waged her own fight in Florida courts against the release of her husband's autopsy photographs. The pictures had been sought by journalists amid questions that better equipment could have prevented his 2001 death during the Daytona 500.
State records are not affected by the ruling, because states have different laws about public access.
Foster's family said in a statement that they hoped "other grieving families will benefit from the court's decision."
The court turned back California attorney Allan Favish's claim that the Foster pictures might prove he was murdered as part of a White House cover-up, without getting into Favish's allegations about conflicting reports and sloppy detective work.
Unanswered questions remain, Favish said yesterday, but "this case is over."
Five government investigations concluded that a depressed Foster, 48, shot himself in the head at a Civil War-era park in Virginia in 1993. The longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton was handling several personal legal matters for them at the time.
The Bush administration argued that the government needs to protect sensitive information, like autopsy photographs of U.S. soldiers killed overseas and pictures of unidentified remains from the Sept. 11 attacks.
At issue was the Freedom of Information Act, which allows reporters and others to get some unclassified federal records. Justices ruled for the first time that a part of the law that allows the government to withhold records that could "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" applies to survivors.
Even if family members object to the release of information, justices said a court could order it if there is evidence to support "belief by a reasonable person" that government impropriety might have occurred. The court did not adopt a stronger standard of compelling evidence.
"It's going to be much more difficult for journalists and others to get these records. They're going to have to show the government screwed up or deliberately misbehaved. I think that's a virtually impossible standard," said Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Kennedy said that lower courts have already made clear that survivors have privacy rights to protect death scene images, in cases involving photographs of the body of President Kennedy, records of Martin Luther King Jr. and an audio tape of the Space Shuttle Challenger astronauts' last words.
"Family members have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek to accord to the deceased person who was once their own," he wrote.
Also yesterday, the court debated what evidence is needed to show discrimination in jury selection, with justices questioning when attorneys should have to explain dismissing minority jurors.
At issue was a California murder case in which a black man was found guilty of killing his white girlfriend's baby. Jay Shawn Johnson appealed the second-degree murder conviction, objecting to the selection of an all-white jury.
The prosecution had excused three potential jurors who were black without giving reasons for the dismissals.
Also, the court considered yesterday whether a doctor acquitted of helping to kill a federal agent should be compensated for his kidnapping on orders from the U.S. government.
The court may or may not answer the largest and most difficult question in the case of Humberto Alvarez-Machain: whether he should be allowed to sue in American courts.
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
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.