(AP)
A court reporter accidentally released transcripts of a closed-door hearing
in the Kobe Bryant case, setting off a First Amendment battle between the judge
and media organizations that received the documents.
The judge in the case issued an order late Thursday threatening contempt of
court if the material was published. The news organizations that received the
transcripts, including The Associated Press, contended the order was uncons-
titutional, but none immediately reported on any of the material.
The organizations said they will appeal the order to the Colorado Supreme
Court on Monday.
The transcripts were from a two-day closed-door hearing earlier this week
that dealt primarily with witness testimony and evidence on the accuser's sex
life.
Media attorney Tom Kelley noted that the media organizations had not sought
the transcripts, which were sealed by the judge. In such cases, it is up to the
organizations to decide whether to publish the material, not a judge or any
other government official, he said.
"Regardless of what information may be contained in this hearing transcript,
and regardless of whether any individual media outlet ultimately decides to
publish it, these members of the press seek to vindicate this fundamental
principle, one that lies at the heart of our system of government," Kelley said
.
The transcripts were of a hearing earlier this week in Eagle, Colo., before
state District Judge Terry Ruckriegle. The court reporter intended to e-mail
them to the judge and other court staff, but accidentally used the wrong group
of addresses, state courts spokeswoman Karen Salaz said.
Shortly after he learned of the mistake, Ruckriegle issued an order saying
the transcripts were not for public dissemination and that any revelation of
their contents could bring a contempt of court citation.
The judge had anticipated the order would be challenged, Salaz said.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press, called the judge's order unconstitutional prior restraint.
"The only prior restraints on the media that have any hope of surviving
challenge constitutionally would involve a breach of national security, and
there's no way this meets that threshhold," Dalglish said.
There is a rich history of U.S. case law against prior restraint, said New
York attorney Floyd Abrams, an expert on the First Amendment. Judges should try
to mitigate any damage caused by release of such information, not punish those
who release it, he said.
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media law and ethics at the University of Minne-
sota, said media organizations shouldn't publish details of the transcripts
"just because they can."
"But if there's a journalistic reason, a public-interest reason, I think
ultimately a news organization will have to make that decision," she said.
"Things that journalists obtain legally, which is certainly what happened here,
they have the right to publish them."
Dalglish said she thought the best outcome would be to see the order over-
turned, proving it unconstitutional, while media organizations decided against
publishing contents of the transcripts.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.228.201.194