Yolo County Judge Timothy Fall quickly denied a motion filed by Public Defender Ron Johnson that sought to close to the public the preliminary hearing in the trial of 16-year-old Davis resident Daniel Marsh. Mr. Marsh stands accused in the double homicides of Oliver “Chip” Northup and Claudia Maupin of Davis.
“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,” Mr. Johnson wrote in his motion. “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.”
Attorney Stephen Burns, representing the Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise and Woodland Daily Democrat, and Paul Nicholas Boylan, representing the Vanguard separately, filed ex parte motions to keep the courtroom open.
Mr. Johnson stated that his argument for closing the courtroom rests on two standards, in particular the substantial probability standard, in which he argued that there was a substantial probability that broadened coverage in the press would “increase the sensational nature of the case,” and therefore make it more difficult to seat a jury in Yolo County.
Judge Fall would quickly deny the motion, arguing that he assumed the representation by the defense was accurate and that this case would contain graphic depictions that the community is not normally presented.
However, he argued that the standard requires a substantial probability that this will lead to a prejudiced jury pool, and that only a mere possibility has been presented.
In his motion, Mr. Johnson argued, “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.”
However, Judge Fall in contrast noted that in cases where there has been extensive media coverage, in his experience most members of the jury who do not live within the community are not paying much attention. So people not living in Davis are not paying attention to what is going on in Davis.
And even in cases that grab a lot more attention than this one, there are substantial pools of people who are simply not paying attention to what is going on, even in their own community.
Judge Fall added that there are other ways to address these concerns besides closing out the people’s right to an open and public trial.
Attorney Stephen Burns praised the ruling, telling the Bee, “We think it’s important that we have these hearings open. There’s no reason for a gag order.”
In their motion, Mr. Burns argued “In essence, (the) defendant would render the preliminary hearing a completely secret, sealed proceeding.” He would add, “Such restrictions would violate the First Amendment.”
Vanguard attorney Paul Boylan added, “The Vanguard argued that the public’s right to observe criminal proceedings through news coverage can only be abridged if there is a substantial probability that news coverage will compromise a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
In the motion, Mr. Boylan argued, “Defendant’s motion admits that the People’s right to attend criminal hearings is guaranteed by both the federal and California constitutions and the media are entitled to the same rights. The Vanguard readily recognizes that criminal defendants have the right to a fair (trial).”
“However, the Vanguard disagrees with Defendant’s conclusion that whenever the two rights conflict, the defendant ‘must triumph,’ ” he adds.
He adds, “The Vanguard opposes Defendant’s motion to close his pending preliminary hearing and argues that this Court cannot exclude the public, frustrating the public’s right to access criminal proceedings, unless this Court specifically finds that Defendant Marsh satisfied his heavy burden of proving that excluding the public is strictly and inescapably necessary.”
“Judge Fall’s ruling essentially agreed with the Vanguard and held that Mr. Marsh and his attorney did not prove there is a substantial probability pretrial publicity will deprive Mr. Marsh of a fair trial,” Mr. Boylan added. “The court room will remain open and the public can stay informed.”
The preliminary hearing remains scheduled for September 13.
Daniel Marsh, who was 15 at the time he committed the murders, will be tried as an adult and faces two counts of first degree murder with enhancements for use of a knife, as well as four special circumstances alleging multiple murders, heinous and depraved murder, lying in wait and torture.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
the public has the right to know. i understand that the defense is concerned about a fair trial – but this is yolo, no one gets a fair trial here. might as well let the vanguard at least tell people the truth.
[quote]but this is yolo, no one gets a fair trial here. might as well let the vanguard at least tell people the truth. [/quote]
Hogwash.
Judge Fall is mistaken. Defendants are entitled to a jury that is a cross section of the community, not a jury consisting only of ignorant, uninformed people who never watch the news or read a newspaper.
Agree, eagle eye, but it’s not clear whether the comment is Judge Fall’s or David’s:
“And even in cases that grab a lot more attention than this one, there are substantial pools of people who are simply not paying attention to what is going on, even in their own community.” (Is this quoting the judge’s finding or adding Vanguard commentary?)
A jury shouldn’t be composed of ignorant folks or ones whose opinions have been irretrievably biased by publicity–just people who can put aside any previous knowledge of a case and fairly judge the defendant on trial.
The defense simply couldn’t make the case that the jury pool probably would be prejudiced by on open preliminary hearing. If it appears that Daniel Marsh can’t get a fair trial when that time comes, it could be moved at that time. Closing courtrooms is a not a good solution for much of anything.
PS–Maybe we don’t need a trial if Mr. Marsh “…was 15 at the time he committed the murders….”
“”And even in cases that grab a lot more attention than this one, there are substantial pools of people who are simply not paying attention to what is going on, even in their own community.” (Is this quoting the judge’s finding or adding Vanguard commentary?)”
That was paraphrasing what Judge Fall stated.
“PS–Maybe we don’t need a trial if Mr. Marsh “…was 15 at the time he committed the murders….” “
Should have said, was alleged to have committed the murders.
“Hogwash.”
what and why?
“Defendants are entitled to a jury that is a cross section of the community, not a jury consisting only of ignorant, uninformed people who never watch the news or read a newspaper. “
part true, but closing the courtroom invites abuse by the prosecution.
[quote]part true, but closing the courtroom invites abuse by the prosecution.[/quote]
Says who?
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
And, the fewer exceptions the better in order to the chance for government abuse. This case doesn’t come close to requiring a secret trial.
“…in order to LIMIT the chance for government abuse.”
[quote]”In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” [/quote]
Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see how this necessarily entails the concept that
[quote]Defendants are entitled to a jury that is a cross section of the community[/quote]. If so, what kind of cross section, economic, by level of education, by ethnic composition of the community, by religious affiliation ? I am unaware that under any circumstances, ” a cross section of the community” is in any way guaranteed by jury selection processes.
“Defendants are entitled to a jury that is a cross section of the community, not a jury consisting only of ignorant, uninformed people who never watch the news or read a newspaper. ”
Speaking from experience, from someone who for many years got most of there news from NPR (okay and Comedy Central) you can stay ignorant of local issues (I.e. Davis issues) and not be an ignorant, uninformed person. Until I started getting (and actually reading) the Enterprise about a year ago, and then stumbled upon and started following this blog regularly I was whoefully ignorant of local issues but pretty well informed of state, national, and global ones.
very good point, we have a highly engaged community but far more people get the bee and the ny times than the enterprise. of course the bee covered this case, but many highly intelligent people in woodland and west sac, have not paid any attention.
“
Says who? “
just saying made the case far better than i did.
Interesting side note. My husband just ask me what I was writing about it. I told him the Daniel Marsh trial. He said,” I have no idea who you are talking about (note I’ve had a mild obsession with this trial). He know what going on in Syria though….
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote an entire book, The Gulag Archipelago, about what happens when trials are conducted in secret as occurred under Stalin.
In our system under the 6th amendment trials are held in public, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”
There are exceptions for minors and this guy is a minor. In the old days before we tried teens as adults this probably would have been held in private. I’m curious about the facts but I’m not excited about suffering through all the morbid anguish that will be presented at trial. I guess getting the story out is the job of the press. Its a dirty job though and i don’t know why anyone would want to do it.
[[quote]I’m curious about the facts but I’m not excited about suffering through all the morbid anguish that will be presented at trial.[/quote]
This neatly sums up what I see as a major failing of our adversarial judicial system. From my understanding both prosecution and defense will try to present their side of the story in as emotionally compelling a manner as possible to sway the juries emotions to their side. This is the best argument that I can think of for an unbiased “discoverer of fact” to present the material in a non emotionally laden way to the jury and let them decide based on the facts and evidence, not the ability of a lawyer to tell his tale in a gripping fashion.
So I guess most juvenile court proceedings are rampant with prosecutorial misconduct since almost all juvenile proceedings are held in private.
[quote]So I guess most juvenile court proceedings are rampant with prosecutorial misconduct since almost all juvenile proceedings are held in private.[/quote]
The point is not that they are rampant with misconduct, but that they could be, and we would have no way of knowing. [url]www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13
[/url]
The evidence presented in a trial doesn’t include much offered in “emotionally compelling a manner as possible.” Maybe you get the opposite impression from reports because that part of some trials is what seems most newsworthy. The trials I’ve observed are overwhelming stretches of boring presentations by attorneys who might try to be dramatic from time to time, usually in their openings and/or closings (which, of course, are not evidenced).
Where would you find these thousands and thousands of qualified investigators? How can you expect they will remain “unbiased discoverers of fact” once they discovered the first incriminating fact? Why even have a jury? It would be easier to come up with one unbiased person than 12, so why not just take the investigator’s finding as the final judgement.
What would do if you were convicted by the work of a finder who got it wrong 47% of the time, or was an alcoholic or was bought off? Right now, judges might be considered the closest thing to your unbiased agent, but sometimes they fall short.
How would you deal with that pesky Bill of Rights? The right to counsel is so engrained in our system that I think you’ll have to try another approach. The good thing is that you may be trying to correct something that’s not the problem that you might think is is.
Mr. Obvious: I have a lot of concerns about the juvenile system and fear at times that laws used to protect juveniles, have actually been used to protect misconduct by the government.
What juvenile protection laws are used to protect government misconduct? There are many privacy laws that “at times” provide cover for stupid or bad government behavior. Of all, I’d least likely want to give up the confidentially that goes with the juvenile court system.