Posted on 07/21/2004 5:34:46 AM PDT by Hawk44
TV or no TV?
That is one of the media-access questions facing Chief District Court Judge Terry Ruckriegle in the Kobe Bryant case, as the uneasy tension between the press and the criminal justice system took center stage Monday.
Even as a divided Colorado Supreme Court was issuing a 4-3 ruling upholding, for now, the prohibition placed by Ruckriegle on media use of transcripts from hearings on Rape Shield Statute issues, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the lawyer representing Bryant's accuser debated future public Internet access to court filings. They unanimously opposed Court TV's request to televise the trial.
Pleadings and court orders deemed suitable for public consumption have been regularly posted on the state judicial Web site, following a previous media request.
Early on, the name of Bryant's accuser was inadvertently revealed in a Web site filing. That fact, coupled with the more recent accidental electronic transmission of closed-door testimony to seven media outlets, prompted a request to terminate Web postings altogether.
Reporters have been watching the site like hawks. Even the most routine docket entry has set off rampant rumors, demonstrated most recently when the notation of a standard "disposition cutoff" deadline for Monday morphed into some media outlets reporting a plea bargain was in the works.
Bryant's Lakers contract and the potential for enormous civil liability would not allow him to plead guilty to any sex-related crime, and prosecutors would not be prone to accept anything less than an admission of non-consensual sex by Bryant.
The debate over Web site postings paled in comparison, however, to the argument of whether TV cameras would be allowed inside the trial. That is one of the most difficult of many knotty decisions Ruckriegle must make before the trial begins at the end of August.
While the First Amendment supports media access, and the televising of celebrity criminal trials under prevailing judicial attitudes is more rule than exception, the prospect of televised testimony in the case still presents cause for pause.
Witness examinations and photographs detailing the intricacies of human sexual anatomy and the admittedly graphic intimate interaction between Bryant and the young woman certainly seem more suited for Masters and Johnson than broadcast coverage.
Attorney arguments Monday focused on fair trial, privacy and security reasons for excluding cameras.
Just Sunday, the remarks made by the young woman's attorney were seized upon and misconstrued by some reporters as proof she wanted to withdraw her accusations.
The interpretation of evidence and attorney arguments by courtroom observers is rarely an adequately accurate substitute for the real thing. And as for security issues, the reality is that wackos and weirdos routinely gravitate toward high profile criminal cases.
It will come down to a difficult judicial balancing process, pitting the fact that all of the parties to the case are united in opposition to TV coverage, against the temptation to permit televising of the trial to accommodate public interest in the case, which remains intense.
I really think he is guilty, but I thought Clinton and OJ and Gore and T Kennedy and Hillary were guilty of crimes too. And I Sandy Burglar is guilty of stealing top secret documents. But some people are just never punished. I even think Scott P might get off.
BTTT
"This trial would be the highest rated show in daytime TV. Bring it on!"
Not to be a jerk, but could someone explain to me why the media follows the cases day by day? Kobe/Laci/Chandra et al.
It seems more like gossip to me: "This is Greta van Susteran with breaking news: today Kobe Bryant wore a red tie into the courtroom!" Poor Greta, reduced to this.
Sorry, but whenever FOX brings these tidbits up, I change the channel.
Anyways - can someone please explain to me what the appeal is with this stuff?
I'm becoming torn between guilty and not guilty. He admitted adultery, so apparently there was physical contact. I wonder if the young woman and her bf were plotting to pull a scam for money?
I am equally frustrated with the justice system. Scott Peterson is a horrible human being, but it's up to the jury to analyze all the "circumstancial evidence". I think he did it. OJ got off with more hard evidence against him. America's juries are a visible indictment on our society.
Oh, sure, that's all we need. Another circus like we had with Ito & Company.
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.