Complete motion at link.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2018CR330/002/2019-05-22 22-04-53 Motion for Sanctions.pdf
5. Counsel refers the Court, in a way analogous to an exhibit, to:
6. The above linked website is an archived version of the “Live-Stream” that appeared on KOAA’s website, an identical version, or portions thereof, of which also appeared on other local and national websites at the time of the arraignment and continue to appear online as of the time of the writing of this Motion. All time stamps referred to below are from that website.
7. There was only one camera allowed in the courtroom for the April 5 Arraignment, per court order, so all the feeds, regardless of network, affiliate, or website, were identical.
8. The camera on April 5 was set up immediately behind defense counsel table, as opposed to previous court dates when Expanded Media Coverage was allowed, when the camera was set up next to the jury box, across the courtroom from the defense table.
9. As has been this Court’s practice, before the Court called the case of Mr. Frazee, counsel met with the judge in chambers. During this period, Mr. Frazee was brought into court by Teller County Sheriff Deputies. See 5:58 into the YouTube video. The live stream broadcast for nearly six minutes before Mr. Frazee was in the courtroom. Mr. Frazee appears on camera wearing a striped jail jumpsuit, pink handcuffs, and a bullet-proof vest. Mr. Frazee sits at defense counsel table alone because counsel was in chambers with the judge and opposing counsel. The camera zooms up close on Mr. Frazee’s face before focusing on the pink handcuffs he has been placed in. See 7:05 into the YouTube video.
10. At 8:35 into the YouTube video, counsel enters the courtroom from chambers. Counsel was carrying a piece of paper – work product – with him. It was placed on defense table as counsel sat down and began speaking with Mr. Frazee. The camera immediately zoomed in on the paper. See 8:50 into the YouTube video. Fortunately, the paper was placed with a blank side of the page up.
11. The camera then, in direct violation of the Court’s orders, zoomed in on counsel and Mr. Frazee having a conversation at defense table. See 8:55 into the YouTube video.
12. After opposing counsel entered the room, the camera then zoomed in again; this time, on the papers on the lectern in the middle of the courtroom. See 9:15 into the YouTube video.
13. After moving about the courtroom, the camera then zoomed in on opposing counsel having a private conversation. See 9:59 into the YouTube video.
14. The camera then focused on the defense table, displaying defense counsel’s computer screen, which, again, was work product. See 10:30 into the Youtube video. As counsel and Mr. Frazee spoke privately, the camera zoomed in on counsel and Mr. Frazee from the side. See 10:48 into the YouTube video.
15. The camera, after moving about the bench, then zoomed in on an open book on the Courts’ desk, showing highlights on what appears to be a statute book. See 11:30 into the YouTube video.
16. After the Arraignment, the camera again zoomed in on counsel and Mr. Frazee having a conversation. See 16:35 into the YouTube video.
17. All of the above mentioned instances were in violation of the Court’s orders concerning expanded media coverage, substantially placed into jeopardy Mr. Frazee’s rights to a fair trial, or unduly subtracted from the solemnity of the court and proceedings.
18. Zoom photography of counsel and Mr. Frazee’s conversations was specifically prohibited by the Court’s Order.
19. Zooming in on documents on counsel table, on documents on the lectern, on books on the judge’s bench, or on counsel’s computer all place Mr. Frazee’s right to a fair trial in jeopardy. All examples also detract from the proceedings and the solemnity of the court.
20. Additionally, none of those offenses would have taken place with traditional media coverage.
21. Importantly, none of these breaches of the court’s orders or etiquette at all informed the public of anything of import. Such that there is a balancing test in play, there was nothing of value on the side of expanding media coverage as compared to traditional media coverage that was added, only the possibility of prejudice and actual prejudice.
