Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FL_engineer

3 posted on 12/11/2002 2:44:27 AM PST by Future Useless Eater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: TexKat; Grampa Dave; Sacajaweau; browardchad; Shermy; ~Kim4VRWC's~; Travis McGee; Fred Mertz; ...
ping y'all
4 posted on 12/11/2002 2:46:24 AM PST by Future Useless Eater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FL_engineer
One more sniper-related story in the news today:


Judge bars TV cameras in sniper suspect's trial

MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer Dec 12, 2002

MANASSAS, Va. (AP) _ A judge on Thursday denied a request from broadcasters to televise the trial of sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad, saying such coverage could compromise Muhammad's right to a fair trial.

Prince William County Circuit Judge Leroy F. Millette Jr. also set an Oct. 14 trial date. He blocked off eight weeks for the trial, which prosecutors estimated would last at least a month.

Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17, are accused in 13 shootings _ 10 of them fatal _ in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., over three weeks ending in late October, and they are suspected in eight other shootings across the country. Both are charged with capital murder. Muhammad is charged in Prince William County with killing Dean Harold Meyers, a Gaithersburg, Md., man who was shot while refueling his car on Oct. 9.

Malvo's court-appointed guardian is preparing for a Jan. 14 preliminary hearing at which a judge is expected to determine whether Malvo will be tried as an adult and face the death penalty in the Oct. 14 shooting of FBI analyst Linda Franklin in Fairfax County.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys had opposed the broadcasters' motion for TV cameras. Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert said the coverage would detract from courtroom decorum. He has said his experience with the Lorena Bobbitt penis-slashing trial, which was televised, convinced him that TV cameras are problematic.

"The court well knows that at one point in time I had no objection to live coverage, but I've changed my mind based on personal experience," he said. "Witnesses, for lack of a better word, tend to ham it up."

Barbara Van Gelder, representing the Radio-Television News Directors Association, disputed the comparison between this case and the Bobbitt case. "This is not a celebrity matter, this is not a salacious matter," she said.

Millette sided with prosecutors and defense attorneys. He will allow a still camera on a day-to-day basis. Defense attorneys Peter Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro had objected to that while Ebert did not.

Greenspun also said during the hearing that he wants to have the trial in Prince William County and he hopes not to seek a change of venue.

Virginia's speedy trial rules would have required a trial date of April 7 or earlienspun last month asked the court to delay setting a trial date so he could have more time to prepare.

Greenspun and Shapiro had argued in court papers that TV cameras could lead to saturation media coverage that would taint the jury pool and deny Muhammad the right to a fair trial.

"Although an extensive, legitimate public interest exists in this case and it is understandable that the public might want to watch this trial, the court cannot ignore the constitutional rights of the accused," the attorneys wrote.

The RTNDA said Virginia law put the burden on Ebert and Greenspun to show good cause for banning the cameras.

"The right of a public trial belongs not only to the accused, but to the public as well," Van Gelder wrote in the motion seeking courtroom camera access.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/vaapwire/MGBFAUWUM9D.html
15 posted on 12/12/2002 6:00:13 PM PST by Ligeia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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