Utah media fighting attempt to close hearing in soccer referee Ricardo Portillo’s death

15 05 2013

The Associated Press reports that lawyers for the teen accused of killing a soccer referee want the case closed.

The lawyers requested the order after a Salt Lake City television station asked for permission to film in the juvenile courtroom during the teen’s initial appearance. The teen is charged with homicide by assault after he punched referee Ricardo Portillo in the head after Portillo issued him a yellow-card warning at an April soccer game.

Portillo died a week later as a result of the injury.

A new court rule allows TV cameras in courtrooms for hearings. The rule does allow the judge to deny TV coverage in sensitive cases or where protected testimony — from children or sexual-assault victims — is given.

But the lawyers for the teen, who is not being named by most Utah news outlets because he’s only charged as a juvenile at this time, are going further than that. They want the judge to bar any reporting on the hearing.

The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, KSL, KUTV, KTVX and FOX 13 have joined together to challenge the order.

Austin Ritter, an attorney with Parr, Brown, Gee and Loveless, argues that closing the meeting goes beyond the authority of the judge.

And court decisions indicate that such a closure may be unconstitutional. In the 1986 Press Enterprise vs Superior Court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a First Amendment right for journalists and the public to attend court hearings.

The court found that a courtroom could only be closed under extraordinary circumstances, and there was no other way to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court noted that the fair-trial right can be preserved when jurors are selected, screening out those who have become biased because of media coverage.

The Supreme Court has also frowned on efforts to stop reporters from publishing stories on newsworthy subjects.

“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity,” the Supreme Court ruled in its 1971 New York Times vs. United States decision.

A hearing on the request has been scheduled for June 14.

Advertisements




Utah District Court affirms records should be free if public benefits

6 05 2013

A 3rd District Court judge’s ruling in an open-records case does more than force the Utah Legislature pay $15,000 in attorney’s fees.

Judge L.A. Dever’s April 30 ruling on behalf of the Utah Democratic Party affirms that government agencies should waive fees when a records request benefits the general public. Dever rejected the Legislature’s attempt to charge the Democrats almost $15,000 for copies of correspondence and other documents related to the redistricting effort.

“I’ve always maintained if there were a case that qualified for public interest, this was it,” said Joel Campbell, an associate professor of journalism at Brigham Young University.

The party sought the documents to find evidence of Republican skulduggery in the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional and legislative district boundaries. Initially, the Democrats agreed to pay $5,000, but lawmakers increased the fee, and only allowed them to take one of three boxes of documents unless additional money was paid.

Eventually, after The Salt Lake Tribune and other media outlets sought to obtain the records, lawmakers posted them online for no cost.

Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act states that government agencies may waive fees if releasing documents would benefit the public rather than an individual. However, the fee waiver is strictly discretionary.

Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, attempted to remove that discretion from the law with a bill that would have required fee waivers if the public-interest test was met. That bill was sent to interim study after the Utah League of Cities and Towns claimed it would be financially ruinous to cities to offer free records.

Even though district court decisions are not considered decisions of record, Campbell believes it will establish a precedent for demanding fee waivers in cases where a documents are sought for a public benefit.