No Cameras in the Courtroom
Hello Friends.
First, I have a few announcements, and then to the business at hand.
Bracelets are available again. They are free. You can send a self-addressed stamped envelope to:
Lori Hellis
104 E. Fairview Ave., #381
Meridan, ID 83642-1733
Next, I want to chat about some new developments for Lauren and John Matthias. As you all know, they have been working hard to grow their platforms and their channel. There are exciting new developments on the horizon for Lauren and John, and because of that, they are doing something of a reboot. They have branched out into other cases and are focusing on what made their podcast so popular – chats about true-crime cases around their dinner table. That means you will see more of Dr. John and less of me. I love them both, appreciate how much we’ve been able to collaborate, and am incredibly proud of how their hard work has paid off for them. I will be delighted to appear with Lauren any time she asks, and in the meantime, I’ll put out my newsletter any time there are developments.
Judge Steven Boyce granted the defense motion to exclude cameras from the courtroom with the concurrence of the prosecution, and I was surprised. So let’s talk about what it means.
According to Idaho law, the decision to allow or ban media in the courtroom is entirely up to the judge and is not appealable. The judge relied heavily on the fact that both the defense and the prosecution were asking for the camera ban.
Judge Boyce issued an 8-page memorandum about his decision. He began the memorandum by saying, “A sacrosanct protection of the penal system in the United States of America is the insistence of a fair trial by an impartial jury….” He goes on to quote the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But unfortunately, he entirely ignores the First Amendment and cites Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), in support of his findings.
It’s not unusual for legal opinions to pull quotes favorable to their argument from case law. It’s ironic, though, that he cites to a case whose holding is precisely opposite from his finding. In the Nebraska Press case, the judge was concerned over pretrial publicity in a notorious murder case. It’s pertinent to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Nebraska Press in 1976, a date that predates satellite and internet broadcast capabilities. Cameras began appearing in the courtrooms in the 1980s. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until 1991 that Pamela Smart’s trial became the first to be covered live, gavel to gavel nationally.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that prior restraint of the press is unconstitutional. In the Nebraska Press case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “While the guarantees of freedom of expression are not an absolute prohibition under all circumstances, the barriers to prior restraint remain high, and the presumption against its use continues intact. Although it is unnecessary to establish a priority between First Amendment rights and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial under all circumstances, as the authors of the Bill of Rights themselves declined to do, the protection against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceedings…The heavy burden imposed as a condition to securing a prior restraint was not met in this case…It is not clear that prior restraint on publication would have effectively protected the accused’s rights, in view of such practical problems as the limited territorial jurisdiction of the trial court issuing the restraining order, the difficulties inherent in predicting what information will in fact undermine the jurors’ impartiality, the problem of drafting an order that will effectively keep prejudicial information from prospective jurors, and the fact that in this case the events occurred in a small community where rumors would travel swiftly by word of mouth.” This does not sound like an opinion that supports Judge Boyce’s decision.
There are differences between Nebraska Press and the Daybell case. In Nebraska Press, the court was attempting to prohibit all pretrial media coverage of the case to protect the jury pool. In the Daybell case, Judge Boyce only excludes cameras, including still, recorded, or video feed. Still, as Nebraska Press points out, it’s impossible to predict what information will actually undermine the juror’s impartiality; it’s not enough that it might undermine some potential juror’s impartiality. As I’ve said before, Chad and Lori are entitled to a jury of their peers who have not formed an opinion about their guilt or innocence. They are not entitled to a pristine jury pool, even if possible. It seems, however, that since the ruling isn’t appealable and his power is absolute, the judge is free to prioritize the Sixth Amendment over the First.
There are many concerns that the judge may not have considered or given sufficient weight to. The judge’s decision will significantly impact the Ada County Court. People who might have watched the live stream from the comfort of their homes will now crowd the courthouse. Most of the Vallow family lives in the Southern U.S., and most of the Cox family lives in the desert Southwest. That means any who wants to attend the trial must travel to Idaho and find lodging for the ten weeks the trial is expected to last. That will require significant effort and resources for most and will simply be impossible for some. Judge Boyce recognized that the people of Fremont and Madison Counties also have an interest in the case and will be inconvenienced by the move to Boise. Beyond that, the pressure on the courthouse will be immense. Typically, the court sets aside some seats for the media and then provides an overflow work room with a video feed for those that can’t get into the courtroom. It’s unclear how that will work with no cameras in the courtroom.
Judge Boyce could revise his order at any time. After consulting Ada County, he may change things for the trial. I hope he reconsiders the ban on trial coverage so that the families and the citizens of Fremont and Madison Counties can watch from home.
The hearing on my motions to unseal all the documents is on October 13, 2022, at 9 am. I will be there to argue my motions. I don’t expect the judge to unseal anything; I expect him to be condescending and dismissive. I also expect he will feel freer to be so because there will be no cameras in the courtroom. I hope I am wrong.
Finally, I want to point out something about the timing of the trial. You’re not going to like this, but I believe, at this point, there is only about a 50/50 chance that the trial will go forward in January. Why? Remember, John Prior filed a motion to dismiss the prosecutors. The court denied the motion, and John Prior asked for leave to appeal that decision in an interlocutory appeal. (That’s the appeal of an interim decision made before a final judgment.) The judge can either give permission or deny it. However, if he denies the appeal, Prior is free to appeal that decision to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Appeals take time, even in the best of circumstances. Under the Idaho rules, Prior has 14 days from the date Judge Boyce enters the order, either approving or denying permission, to file his request with the Supreme Court. After that, the Supreme court must find that the interlocutory order is appealable and give leave for the requesting party to file an appeal.
Once the appeal is filed, a written hearing transcript must be created. You may recall the transcript of the grand jury proceedings took months to prepare. The portion of the court record dealing with Prior’s motions will be much shorter than the grand jury proceedings but could still take a month or more to prepare. Once the transcript is finished and filed with the court, the appellant (Prior) has 35 days to file his appellant’s brief. The brief cannot be any longer than 50 pages and outlines the law and his argument for why Judge Boyce was wrong. The court often grants extensions on these deadlines. Once the appellant’s brief is filed, the respondent (the prosecution) has 28 days to file a responding brief but can also be granted extensions. The court must then set a time to hear oral arguments. In other words, appeals take months and sometimes years. If John Prior pursues the appeal of Judge Boyce’s decision, it will be impossible for the trial to begin on schedule.
That’s a wrap for now. Send your questions to http://info@thelorivallowstory.com, and don’t forget to send for your bracelet. Enjoy these beautiful fall days.
