A judge ruled in favor of the media with regard to open courtrooms Monday in a hearing connected to the ongoing conspiracy case stemming from Smith State Prison.
The free press victory was, in part, due to the assistance of the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Georgia.
At issue was a request by TheGeorgiaVirtue.com to record upcoming court proceedings involving former Smith State Prison Warden Brian Adams and another former employee of GDC, Ireon Moore. Adams is being sued in connection with his oversight of the prison at the time of the death of Mr. Bobby Kicklighter in Glennville, and Moore for her alleged connection to the case. The lawsuit names Adams in his official capacity as warden and as an individual. Though both were terminated from the state agency at different times, the suit triggers legal representation by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS), which is provided at taxpayer expense.
Request for Media Coverage
The request for media access by TheGeorgiaVirtue.com follows the outlet’s ongoing coverage on Smith State Prison spanning nearly four years.
Under the Uniform Superior Court Rules of Georgia, reporters seeking to record judicial proceedings must obtain written approval from the presiding judge, outline the devices to be used, and name the individual responsible for those devices. In this instance, TheGeorgiaVirtue sought to utilize a laptop, an iPad, and an iPhone in the proceedings. The parties are notified of the request and have the opportunity to object, but must make clear their argument for opposition. If any party objects, a hearing is held for further argument before a judge issues an order.
TheGeorgiaVirtue filed a request on March 3 and the parties were notified on March 4.
Objection to Media Access
Annarita McGovern, counsel for Adams who was hired by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) and Paul Henefeld, defendant for Ireon Moore, also a former Georgia Department of Corrections employee, filed an objection to the request for media access.
Specifically, it was asserted that the media coverage would:
- Prejudice to defendant’s right to a fair trial in the pending civil case and the upcoming criminal trial – Though TheGeorgiaVirtue’s request never sought approval for live streaming, McGovern contended that the live media coverage and broadcasting would expose the jury to the facts of the case.
- Risk disruption and intimidation – McGovern said the mere presence of recording equipment and media personnel could alter dynamics of witness testimony and attorney-client communications
- Present potential for misrepresentation and sensationalism
McGovern wrote that the remedy would be other means of public access, like court transcripts, which are often made available several months after the conclusion of a trial.
Upon the filing of the objection by counsel for Adams, TheGeorgiaVirtue sought the assistance of the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Georgia. Attorney Ward Evans filed an entry of Appearance and Memorandum of Law in Support of TheGeorgiaVirtue.
In it, Ward said the objections by the defendant were unsupported and in conflict with Georgia’s policy of promoting open court proceedings. He wrote that the “alleged harm would not outweigh the benefits to the public of allowing TGV to audio record the trial.” Specifically:
- Recording will promote increased public access to the courts and openness of judicial proceedings
- Recording will not disturb the integrity and dignity of the Court
- Recording will not negatively impact due process nor the Court’s true finding function
- The proposed recording would contribute to the enhancement of the ends of justice.
- No other facts weigh against granting TGV’s Rule 22 request
On April 13, Attorney Brent Savage, who is representing the Plaintiffs in the civil case, filed a Response to the Opposition to Requests for Media Coverage. In the brief, he wrote:
Defendants’ claim of prejudice is without merit. As detailed in other motions, both the Defendants and the State [of Georgia] have actively worked to obstruct Plaintiff’s access to evidence…The public has a right to access information about the proceedings, especially when serious allegations of misconduct are at stake involving activity at tax-payer funded entities. The Defendants are not harmed by media coverage—they simply wish to avoid the public learning the truth. The State’s efforts to control the release of information should not diminish the public’s right to transparency.
Hearing
Judge Ronald Hallman, who is the State Court Judge in Evans County but was assigned to preside over this case to avoid any conflicts by Tattnall County officials, held a hearing on April 14.
McGovern and Henfeld again argued that their clients would suffer substantial harm if the proceedings were recorded. McGovern argued that Adams would lose his right to a fair trial, could lose his freedom, and even his life. She called the coverage an infringement on Adams’ rights and stated that the public would be confused by the facts of the case in the civil case and the criminal case.
When asked by the judge if a trial had been scheduled for Adams, McGovern stated it had not but could be in the next year. McGovern also told the court that Adams had been indicted, which is factually inaccurate. His case has not yet been presented to grand jury.
Finally, McGovern alleged that the recording of the proceedings would be a “burden for the court” and would create a hardship.
Henfeld subsequently adopted the same arguments on behalf of his client, Ireon Moore.
Ward Evans argued the Rule 22 request on behalf of TheGeorgiaVirtue, asserting that the requests were valid, timely filed, and that the arguments were made without evidence or facts. He stated that if the standard was as laid out by McGovern and Henfeld, “requests would never be granted.”
Hallman ultimately ruled in favor of TheGeorgiaVirtue, saying the subject of the proceedings would be reported on regardless and that there’s no substantial risk to the defendants. He also noted that audio records would not interfere with the conduct of the court.
Hallman’s ruling prompted McGovern to ask the court to prohibit TheGeorgiaVirtue from sharing the recordings in the future. She said it could be “a roadmap for the district attorney to prosecute,” but also wanted to make sure it did not appear on a podcast or something else. Judge Hallman responded that he did not believe the court had the authority to impose such limitations and would not set restrictions.
At the end of the hearing, McGovern told the court that she would likely be filing a request for a change of venue “in light of the press coverage.”
Prior to this date, there has been no press coverage of the civil proceeding. This article represents the first one.
