The media motion to intervene in the RA case is an interesting read.
Firstly, it sounds like the attorneys representing the media organisations were expecting - because of an Order made by the Court - to have their submissions heard on Nov 22 pursuant to Indiana Code 5-14-13-5.5 and Indiana Rules of Court (Rules on Access to Court Records Rule 6 ("APRA")). It turns out that despite an Order being made to this end, this procedure was not followed by the Court on Nov 22.
The motion (or "application" if you're reading from the UK or other English legal system countries) then goes on to make a few other pertinent points about the media's interest in gaining access to certain documents. These are serious people, without a direct interest in the case itself (rather, with the civil rights questions raised by how it is being handled). This motion was drafted by presumably very experienced lawyers, and I can't imagine it being submitted frivolously:
- "During the Public Hearing, the State triviliazed the media's interests by referring to "extraordinary lengths" taken to get a "soundbite." The Media Intervenors' interests are not so trivial - quite the opposite. The media, as the Fourth Estate, serves the public by reporting on matters of keen public interest [...] promoting transparency, and holding the government accountable."
- "Though the State indicated that actors other than the Defendant may have be (sic) involved in the alleged crimes, the State apparently has conducted sufficient investigation as to the Defendant himself to charge him with double felony murder. The State may continue investigating other actors while disclosing why the Defendant was charged. The supporting information should not be kept under the rug [...]."
- "The State's concern for witness privacy suggests that the State may ask for future hearings - or even the trial itself - to be blocked from public access. If the public is to accept the ultimate result of any trial, this is not a realistic solution. [...] A public trial and public proceedings are essential to ensure justice for the victims, fairness to the accused, and overall legitimacy of the process."
- "If the Defendant is acquitted or enters into a plea agreement, the public needs to know why to ensure the government is doing its job. If the Defendant is found guilty, the public needs to know why to ensure that the government is delivering justice."
- "There are too many instances in our nation's short history of criminal sanctions being handed down without appropriate process and public oversight. This is not an occasion to return to that practice."
You can read the full motion attached, which was submitted by Margaret Christensen from Dentons LLP out of Indianapolis, acting on behalf of the Associated Press, ABC News, Hoosier State Press Assoc., and others, to the Carroll County Circuit Court on November 23.
www.wishtv.com
