Maryland judiciary case files6/27/2023 Wayne said he and other attorneys involved in the broadcast ban lawsuit view the proposed rule as unconstitutional. In various circumstances, we’re seeing courts in Maryland trying to curtail public access,” Moon told The Sun. “We’re just talking about parts of court proceedings the public is already allowed to attend. David Moon, a Montgomery County Democrat, said he anticipates legislation to protect transparency in the courts, though he’s not sure yet whether he’ll be the one to introduce it. Several Maryland lawmakers, who’ve in the past pushed for increased transparency in the courts, will be paying attention the state Supreme Court meeting Friday.ĭel. … If people knew that their coming to court could result in their being played on the six o’clock news, or wherever, I think it would be even harder to get people to come to court,” Shellenberger told The Sun.Īdded Shellenberger: “There’s a big difference between someone putting on Facebook ‘I saw Scott Shellenberger testify in a murder case’ and being able to press play.” “Every day, my prosecutors are begging, cajoling and requesting that witnesses and victims come to court. The ban “does precious little to protect witnesses against intimidation, harassment, and violence, as it does not prevent the widespread publication of their names, their images, and the verbatim content of their testimony,” Bennett wrote.īaltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger, who represents Maryland’s elected prosecutors on the judiciary rules committee, said the committee adequately balanced the public’s right to access court proceedings with concerns over protecting witnesses. He wrote that judges already have the authority to shield sensitive information. In his ruling, Bennett, the federal judge, said that argument was compelling but that the state wasn’t achieving its goal by banning the dissemination of all recordings of criminal proceedings. Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger There’s a big difference between someone putting on Facebook ‘I saw Scott Shellenberger testify in a murder case’ and being able to press play. He told The Sun the proposed rule, which only allows attorneys officially in the case to obtain the audio, would put “the defendant or the family in a position where they have to pay to retain counsel in a situation where a lot of us would do it gratuitously before” officially taking the case.ĭefending against the federal lawsuit challenging the broadcast ban, Maryland contended the ban was necessary to protect against witness intimidation and to defend the integrity of criminal proceedings. O’Neill said he listens to the recording of the hearing to ensure “there’s a substantial likelihood of success” before agreeing to represent - and charge - the client. Prospective clients regularly ask O’Neill to represent them at post-conviction hearings, citing what the judge told them at sentencing. Peter O’Neill, a veteran defense attorney based in Anne Arundel County, said the proposed rule also could burden criminal defendants. A spokeswoman for the Office of the Public Defender, which represents people accused of crimes across the state who can’t afford a lawyer, declined to comment. “Requiring an attorney to come to the courthouse during business hours to listen to a recording is simply not feasible for many of our members who carry busy caseloads during the day.” “Ordering the audio recording of a proceeding is a faster and more cost-effective way for attorneys to investigate and determine if ordering the transcript is necessary,” wrote Erica Suter, president of the defense attorneys’ association. The exceptions outlined in the proposed rule would not apply to attorneys in such situations. The letter cited a common scenario where a defense attorney would listen to the previous testimony of a witness also slated to testify against their client. However, defense lawyers regularly listen to recordings of cases other than their clients’ in order to prepare their defense. The proposed rule prohibiting the release of audio recordings carves out exceptions for certain judges, attorneys and people involved in the criminal case at issue. The Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association also opposes the rule change, citing concerns from lawyers who either practice alone or work for small law firms that the rule change, as drafted, would be overly burdensome for them. That letter cited an opinion from the federal court prohibiting Maryland from enforcing its broadcast ban against National Public Radio and allowing the organization to publish a podcast featuring audio from the Capital Gazette mass shooting trial and sentencing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |