Posted on 02/04/2014 6:24:59 AM PST by NautiNurse
WESLEY CHAPEL — A court hearing will be held Tuesday on a motion by the Pasco County State Attorney’s Office seeking guidance on the release of the surveillance video that shows the January shooting death of Chad Oulson.
[snip]
The motion seeks clarification on three items. First: Should the video be released to the defense attorneys and, if so, should it be a copy or viewed under the supervision of the state.
[snip]
The video depicts the shooting of Oulson and “related acts” before and after the shooting, the motion says.
[snip]
The motion will be heard at 11 a.m. in front of Circuit Judge Pat Siracusa at the Robert D. Sumner Judicial Center in Dade City.
(Excerpt) Read more at tbo.com ...
If you were in the courtroom, and had one smartphone, what would you do during the showing of the theater video?
A) Send text messages.
B) Train your camera on the video to make a pirated copy.
C) Scan the courtroom with your camera, capturing the reactions of people watching the video.
D) Use your cell minutes to FReep.
Release of any tapes to the public would be a very bad idea because it would make things that much harder to pick an unbiased jury.
If it were me I’d do B but that might not be necessary since anything shown in the courtroom and/or turned over to the defense in Florida would have to be made available to the media.
In Monday’s motion, the State Attorney’s Office cited a Florida law that says any video, photo or audio recording of the killing of a person is deemed classified but can also be viewed by family members or released by a court order.
and
Finally, once videos are reviewed by defense attorneys, they typically become public record and can be requested by media outlets.
Those two "factoids" seem to conflict. I think the prosecution may be just trying to cover their bases and get the judge to clarify the situation. You can bet the media is breathless to get their hands on the video, so can they give a copy to the defense, but continue to deny a copy to the media?
It also appears that they have asked the judge to decide whether the media will be allowed to see the parts played in tomorrow's hearing.
Okay, that’s just weird. I thought I was responding to a post by Uncle Chip, but I must have clicked on the reply button from a Null post.
Post 24 was for Chip.
Right. The video is probably critical to the prosecution. If it’s given to the defense it will be made public and will be shown all over Tampa area. That will make jury selection and a sustainable conviction difficult.
Better would be to have the defense view it.
And then there’s this:
A 2011 state law makes it a third-degree felony to release video, photos or recordings depicting a death, and Circuit Judge Pat Siracusa will consider whether it prohibits the release in this case ....
The judge may order media blackout of the video, at least through the trial. There is precedent with other high profile cases.
They are still doing bond hearings. I'm not sure "discovery" has started. But if the prosecution is going use evidence in a "bond hearing", it seems that the defense should be entitled to it.
I impulsively think the shooter is bad, given the circumstances shared thus far. But I reserve judgement until all the facts come out.
I would assume the sheriff has seen the video and he was pretty clear.
Yep, it’s safe to say that the prosecution wants to cover their butts because of the nature of the evidence makes the usual release to the media a felony.
They are not wrong to expect that with the internet, release of the video will result in all sorts of unsavory behavior of “netizins” that they do not want to be held liable for.
If I were the judge, I would put a gag order on the video and clear the courtroom in tomorrow’s hearing.
“I don’t see why their would be a question about this.”
Yeah, me neither. Well, there may be less of a conflict than this article makes it seem like. Perhaps they always go through these hoops.
I don’t like the idea of showing this on TV to the general public, or anything like that. I do not understand why they do things like that, play 911 recordings for example.
Perhaps the relatives of those involved want to see or hear things like that, but I find it rather exploitative (and upsetting) to just broadcast them.
The public's questionable right to access is greatly outweighed by the right of the accused to a fair trial.
There is also the task of getting a jury. If the defense can mess up the jury pool it helps their case.
Yep --
Pasco County prosecutors say they will give the surveillance video from Wesley Chapel Cobb Theater shooting to the defense team Tuesday at a hearing.The video captured the moment when, prosecutors said, a former police officer Curtis Reeves shot Chad Oulson in a dispute over texting about three weeks ago. Generally state laws ban the release of videos depicting a killing.
Judge Sumner who presided over the hearing, said he might want to see the video before making a ruling on it. The prosecutors said, the video itself was not graphic in nature.
Chad Oulson's widow Nicole said she didn't mind the video disclosure to the defense. Reeves' defense lawyers mentioned the video needed to be released to the media in the responsible way.
So far the video was not given to any media outlets. There is a temporary injunction in release of the video until Wednesday.
DADE CITY (FOX 13) - The public may never see the video that allegedly shows the fatal Pasco County movie theater shooting – that's if attorneys get their way.In front of a Pasco County judge on Tuesday, attorneys on both sides argued why they thought that video should remain sealed.
Though they say the video is not graphic in nature – likely because of the blurriness of it – they believe the public does not have the right to see the argument that led to the death of Chad Oulson.
Curtis Reeves, a 71-year-old retired police officer, is charged with shooting Oulson. Police said the shooting was over texting during the previews.
Witnesses said Oulson may have thrown a popcorn bag at Reeves before he was shot, with his wife by his side. She was in court with her attorneys Tuesday as well.
The judge said since the defense has just received the video, he would delay the decision on its release until likely Wednesday. Attorneys representing the media are expected to argue in favor of the video's release at the hearing.
Reeves also finds out if he will remain in jail. He's been held ever since the shooting, though his attorneys claim he should be released because he acted in self-defense.
The defense is also expected to issue an official not guilty plea, and the judge will likely set a trial date.
let the public view it AFTER the case is closed...
A), B), C) and D) will ALL get you kicked out and/or charged with contempt of court.
Both sides argued to keep it sealed. My guess is that it’s to blurry and ambiguous. The kind that can be endlessly argued either way and guaranteed to pollute the jury pool in an uncertain manner.
If it were a slam-dunk type of video for one side, that side wouldn’t want it kept sealed.
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.