My blogging cohort Russ McBee has fired the first salvo over the KNS's coverage of the trial.
First of all, the opening paragraph makes it sound like these motions are some kind of shady maneuver, when in fact, they're entirely legal and appropriate. Prejudicial and irrelevant material has to be kept out of the trial if the jury is expected to measure only the facts relevant to the case. These motions aren't about "keeping the jury in the dark" at all; that phrase implies there is some sort of attempt to deceive the jury. Rather, they're about filtering out the noise.
Yes it is entirely legal to try and get relevant material excluded if it damages your case. It's also sound strategy. But it is also about "keeping the jury in the dark." It is the lawyer's job to create a story for the jury, one that is most beneficial for his client. It is the judge's job to ensure that the lawyer builds that story following the requirements of the law. If the lawyer finds a legal way to suppress a damning fact, he will do so, regardless of how relevant to the case it may be. In fact, the higher the relevance, the harder he will work to suppress it.
Therefore it is entirely appropriate for the KNS to point out that the lawyers for the commissioners were trying to keep relevant information from the jury.
I'm much less comfortable with the rape analogy chosen by Jamie Satterfield. It evokes an emotional subtext that runs counter to its context. While on the surface the analogy supports the process of suppressing information, the idea of hiding information from jurors deliberating over a repeat rapist sparks revulsion on a gut level, and that emotional response will certainly prejudice the reader against the practice.
Now, for your edification and delight, here's a link to the actual Sunshine Act.
See you in court!
Posted by Rich at September 11, 2007 3:13 AM | TrackBackRich, you make a good point about the lawyer's job being to cast the story a particular way; that's certainly true. The point I failed to make in that post (and failed miserably, I might add) was the mention of cocaine dealing and sexual harassment in the paper, as if those were the only things trying to be excluded. I saw those as being of a piece with the rape analogy, but I failed to make that point. The way the KNS article read, the attempt to exclude the cocaine and sexual harassment stories was reported as if the lawyers were trying to keep something material and relevant from the jury's ears (the "keeping them in the dark" characterization, especially). That, to me, represented a biased and inaccurate portrait of the argument.
I don't think those particular issues are relevant in this suit (and neither did Fansler, apparently), since the character of the appointee has little to do with the question of whether a Sunshine Law violation happened on Black Wednesday. Even if they'd appointed Mother Theresa as a Commissioner, it would have violated the Sunshine Law to deliberate her appointment in secret. That's another aspect of the point I failed to articulate, but it's really just an aside to the question of how the KNS is coloring the coverage.
Posted by: Russ on September 11, 2007 10:13 AMIn 4 months early voting begins for the County primary.Ya think the N-S coverage has anything to do with that? There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that says a newspaper can not express a strong & some may argue a biased opinion on the front page.
Posted by: Bill Young on September 11, 2007 2:29 PM