Eye on the Courts: Murder Trial Must Stay Open

The Vanguard this week will file a motion with the court, intervening to keep the courtroom open for the murder trial of Daniel Marsh.  The Davis Enterprise and Sacramento Bee have already indicated they will be filing motions, as well.

We understand the rationale for the defense’s motion.  His attorney believes that the media coverage, which includes the prominence of the victims in the Davis community and details about his family’s troubles and mental health history, has made it difficult for him to receive a fair trial.

“The media coverage has offered speculations about details of the case, including possible defenses, evidence which may later be deemed inadmissible, Mr. Marsh’s history, and his motives,” Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson writes.  “The media coverage has made a spectacle out of this case, and the potential jurors in Yolo County are unlikely to forget the assumptions and statements publicized by the news media before Mr. Marsh’s trial.”

He adds, “This case has received sensational treatment. The defense expects that there will be large amounts of evidence to be presented at the preliminary examination, and that the nature of that evidence is likely to excite further emotions within the community.”

However, Mr. Johnson probably picked the last judge in Yolo County who is likely to grant that motion.  Just on Friday, the Vanguard, sitting in Judge Timothy Fall’s courtroom, observed a motion by the prosecution to conduct a closed-court in camera (private) review of a case.  Judge Fall asked by what grounds he should close a public courtroom, and the prosecution was very quick to withdraw the motion.

In 2011, when prosecutor Carolyn Palumbo attempted to conduct a private hearing about the status of a police officer, former West Sacramento Police Officer James Reeder, during the trial of the Galvan brothers, she launched into a near tirade, proclaiming loudly, “There are bloggers who are blogging on so many blogs about this case.”

Judge Fall did not blink, he carefully weighed the evidence and the need to go into private, and saw clearly that there was no reason to do so.  He even lectured the Deputy DA on the need for the public to be able to watch court proceedings and the importance of the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment, he argued, “was the best thing since sliced bread.”

The Enterprise reported on Tuesday that it intends to oppose the motion in court.  The motion will be heard on August 29 before Judge Timothy Fall.

Editor and Assistant Publisher Debbie Davis said on Monday, “We believe the public has a right to hear the evidence that is presented at this young man’s preliminary hearing.”

Mr. Johnson argues, “It is unlikely that the potential jurors in Yolo County would be unaware of the existing news coverage in this case and remain unaware of the facts of this case after evidence is presented at the preliminary hearing. In short, it would be almost impossible to impanel an impartial jury in this case, and Mr. Marsh would be denied a fair trial.”

We agree with Mr. Johnson here, but differ in that we believe that is a better argument for a change of venue than a closed courtroom.

In a weekend editorial, the Daily Democrat argued, “It’s understandable the attorney for 16-year-old Davis youth Daniel Marsh wants Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall to close a preliminary hearing in the gruesome murders of Oliver ‘Chip’ Northup and Claudia Maupin.”

They write, “Johnson makes a good argument, but he’s ignoring a much simpler and — ultimately — a better course of action in favor of his client. Simply stated, Johnson could have his client enter a guilty plea by reason of insanity right now.”

The Daily Democrat continues, “The advantages are obvious. Marsh could get psychiatric help. His records would, undoubtedly, be sealed as part of the plea agreement thereby sparing him, his family as well as the family and friends of Northrup and Maupin the nightmare of going through a jury trial.”

“It would also save both the county, courts and Marsh’s family the time and money involved in a lengthy trial, but that should be only a secondary consideration,” the Daily Democrat writes.

With all due respect to the paper, that is not how this is going to work.

First of all, we cannot presume to tell the defense how to proceed in its case.  We believe that Mr. Johnson knows what we do about Judge Fall’s sensibilities, and we surmise he is laying the groundwork for a change of venue motion.  The likelihood of success is small – after all, Marco Topete could not get a change of venue, even with all but one judge recusing himself and the victim having worked in the courtroom.

Second, the defense would more likely plead not guilty (rather than guilty) by reason of insanity.  In either case, the Democrat seems to assume that the prosecution would accept that plea.

Under California law, to gain Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, one has to adhere to the M’Naghten rule which requires that the defendant was unaware of the consequences of his actions and puts the burden of proof on the defense to prove it.

The Guilty but Mentally Ill plea occurs where there is clear evidence of “either a lack of the defendant’s appreciation for the wrongness of their actions, or a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions.”

But why would the prosecution accept such a plea?

The Democrat concludes, “As titillating as it would be for newspapers like The Democrat to report what occurred that horrible night, we would prefer to spare the families and the public all the dark details, which is why we think a plea deal with be better all around.”

They add, “Johnson should take the high road by protecting his client and the public without having to bring all the seedy details to light.”

The Democrat is being presumptuous here, assuming that the defendant committed the acts he is accused of.  Not only is he innocent until proven guilty, but we have seen a number of high profile cases and other murder cases where the police and prosecutors got things critically wrong.  We have no evidence yet – why presume the defendant is guilty?

That point aside, we disagree with the Democrat here and believe that the material needs to come out publicly – lest rumor and innuendo replace facts and evidence.

The Democrat makes a strange argument, in part arguing that the public has the right to know but in part arguing that they should be spared the details.  We do not believe that hiding the details of what happened here makes the situation more palatable, or somehow will protect the public.

If anything, we believe the opposite – that the public not only has the right to know, but has the duty to learn the truth of what happened, and take steps to hopefully prevent this horrible incident from repeating itself.

The Vanguard has fought for open government and believes that transparency is a fundamental core value in a functioning democracy.  If the government wishes to take away the liberty of a citizen, then it has to do so in a very open and transparent manner where all can see, monitor and scrutinize.

We firmly believe that Judge Fall will continue to uphold the principal of open government and transparency and keep this matter open to the public.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: