Judge rejects media request (Judge Walton on Libby case)

cascadiance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jan-09-07 04:47 PM
Original message

Judge rejects media request (Judge Walton on Libby case)

Looks like Mr. "State Secrets Privilege" Judge Reggie Walton is up to no good again, trying to keep as much of this administration's "doings" secret from the rest of us the way he always seems to do!

From:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/16420511.htm

Judge rejects media request
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A federal judge said Tuesday he would not make available daily audio recordings of the upcoming trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

News organizations had asked that recordings of testimony and arguments be released for broadcast. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton denied the request, saying the only recording of court proceedings is done by the court stenographer to help ensure an accurate transcript.

"This recording, however, is produced by the court reporter's personal equipment and is not the official record of the proceedings," Walton said. "It is therefore not available to the public."

The Supreme Court releases audio recordings of arguments in major cases, and lower federal courts have started to follow the Supreme Court's lead, lawyers for the news organizations said in court documents.

Broadcasting court proceedings - along with commentary and analysis - could prejudice jurors and lead to an unfair trial, Walton said.

The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is to begin Jan. 16. He is accused of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about his conversations with journalists regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame.

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

napi21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jan-09-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message

1. OK, so will the transcripts be available to the public?

I'm personally torn on cameras in the courtrooms because the attorneys play to the camera, and I guess I can accept the steons recordings as being her tools to insure accuracy, but I DO want tthe trranscripts to be make public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hoosier Dem

(346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jan-09-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. I agree with you...

I don't think cameras should be allowed in courtrooms becuase of the way attorneys play to them (remember the OJ circus?).

I think the official court reporters minutes are enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MissWaverly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jan-09-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message

2. I don't see how they can keep the lid on this

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jan-09-07 05:05 PM
Response to Original message

3. This likely means no live blogging, too.

I was looking forward to emptywheel and the firedoglake crew's coverage. Very disappointed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Demit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-10-07 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. Why would it mean no live blogging? The judge didn't put a ban on coverage,

or on materials that reporters produce themselves. He's just not going to provide the raw material to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-10-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. I'm concerned about Reggie's statement:

Edited on Wed Jan-10-07 08:28 AM by leveymg

I may have misinterpreted the Judge, but, he seems to imply that the only recording he's going to allow is the court stenographer's.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton denied the request, saying the only recording of court proceedings is done by the court stenographer to help ensure an accurate transcript.

"This recording, however, is produced by the court reporter's personal equipment and is not the official record of the proceedings," Walton said. "It is therefore not available to the public."

If "recording" refers to audio recording, then we're okay. In arguendo , however, the term recording may also refer to any form of contemporaneous transcription, including live-blogging.

The contrary argument, of course, is that note-taking is normally allowed by reporters and spectators in the audience, and live-blogging is just another form of that.

I would seek clarification on this point, so there are no misunderstandings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Demit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-10-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. Well, I guess Christy at FDL will know, definitively, but I read the judge's

comment about "the only recording of court proceedings" as meaning merely that it is the only one done by officials of the court, not that it is the only one permitted to be made. Otherwise he would have said "the only permissable recording of court proceedings..." I think if this had been some kind of gag order, that would have been a pretty notable development, and would have been noted in the piece as such. JMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:54 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.