Attorney Stephen Jones threatens newspaper with legal action for reporting on sealed case

The Enid News & Eagle's attempt to unseal court records has drawn threats of legal action by Enid attorney Stephen Jones.
 
Jones is representing Eric Edwards, the Enid attorney whose charge for felony perjury the newspaper is trying to open for the public to see.
 
The newspaper filed two motions on Tuesday seeking to unseal the records closed by District Judge Ray Dean Linder in May.
 
In reporting on the motions Wednesday, the newspaper noted that a letter from Jones had been hand-delivered and faxed to the newsroom less than 45 minutes after he had declined to comment for the story.
 
In the letter, Jones said, "The publication of a newspaper story about matters that are under seal may result in contempt citations against the newspaper, the reporter personally, and their sources."
 
However, the newspaper is under no gag order from the judge that would prohibit it from reporting on the case having been sealed and its attempt to open the file.
 
Jones sent another letter following Wednesday's story. He accused the newspaper of engaging in a "journalistic assassination" of Edwards and of "bullying."
 
He also wrote:

We are evaluating, as counsel for one of the parties in interest, whether the newspaper, its anonymous source, and the reporters have violated the Court’s Order, and thus subject to contempt, punishment, and liable for violation of Mr. Edward’s civil rights. The sanction available against their likely source is unique to him.

How the newspaper could have violated the judge's order and Edwards' civil rights isn't clear.
 
For example, the charge against Edwards was originally posted to On Demand Court Records, a state court records database. The newspaper reported that its subsequent request to the Major County court clerk for an affidavit in the case was denied on the grounds the case records had been sealed.
 
The case was removed from ODCR that afternoon, but not before the newspaper grabbed a screen capture of the case.
 
Best known for serving as Timothy McVeigh's lead defense, Jones is the one guilty of bullying. Kudos to the Enid News & Eagle editors and reporters for not kowtowing to him.
 

 
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
 
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Tulsa oilman's divorce case in Osage County opened after secrecy questioned by newspaper

A divorce case in Osage County was opened Wednesday after the editor of The Bigheart Times questioned why the entire case, including the names of the couple, lawyers and judge, had been sealed.

Even the order sealing the case had been closed to the public.

Debra Zinke, owner of the Z7 Bar Ranch in Osage County, is seeking a divorce from Robert Zinke, the president of Tulsa-based oil and gas company Zenergy Inc., Bigheart Times owner Louise Redcorn reported today for the Tulsa World.

(ZINKE, DEBRA R vs. ZINKE, ROBERT M, FD-11-00142, Osage County, July 22, 2011)

Redcorn had challenged the manner in which the case had been sealed in Osage County on July 22.

Gentner Drummond, attorney for Debra Zinke, told Redcorn that the state Open Records Act justified the case being sealed.

No, it doesn't.

Drummond also claimed that divorce cases are commonly filed under seal in Oklahoma.

No, they are not. And such a practice should not become common.

Our public court system is just that -- public. The rich and powerful don't have a separate judicial system in our state.

Why else should the public be entitled to know what's in a divorce case?

First, the public is entitled to make the most informed choice possible when selecting who will operate its government. Divorce files, like many other court records, can provide valuable information about business dealings and other aspects of a candidate for political office, an elected official or a powerbroker who influences government.

Take, for instance, the divorce file of then-Tulsa mayoral candidate Dewey Bartlett Jr. In September 2009, Michael Bates posted on his conservative blog Batesline a small portion of the 2002 case file that brought into question Bartlett's financial acumen, a key selling point in his campaign.

(After Bates began posting parts of the file, Bartlett succeeded in getting a Tulsa County special judge to seal the file -- a day or so after Bartlett had signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.)

Second, if some divorce records in the public court system are closed, why not seal everyone’s files? Because the information in those court files can help each of us make more informed life-affecting decisions. Choosing a business partner? Hiring an employee? Selecting a doctor, baby-sitter or day-care provider for your child? Concerned about your daughter’s new boyfriend? Etc.

Personal information in government-held records can help us make better decisions about the people and events most important in our lives.

Third, access to court records assures the public that everyone is treated equally in our judicial system and that decisions aren't "based on secret bias or partiality" – as the U.S. Supreme Court said in defense of open courts.

"Closed trials breed suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns disrespect for law," the Court said.

The same can be said for court records sealed from public view.

In requesting the Zinke divorce case be filed, Drummond wrote that "publication of the name of the parties in this case, either in the public record or through public media, would do irreparable economic harm to the parties, and their related companies."

How? Why?

He cited no laws or court rules to justify sealing the case, reported Redcorn.

She said Osage County District Judge John Kane deferred her questions to Drummond but suggested that "irreparable harm" could result if the case was open. She said records show Kane granted the order "in the interests of justice."

What justice? What compelling reason relevant to this case did Kane have for sealing the entire file and overriding the public interest in open court records?

Kane's decision smacks of smacks of impropriety and favoritism.

Drummond said he was "conceding ground" by having the file opened.

He also said he should take the blame for his "legal shenanigans."

"I was culpable. I don’t think Judge Kane was culpable in any way, and I know the Zinkes aren’t culpable. They just wanted to do it privately. They never mentioned the word 'seal,'" he told Redcorn.

But Drummond told her that he would defend the privacy of any final settlement "over his dead body."

The final settlement shouldn't be closed any more than the rest of the file should have been.

But if it is, the public can trust that Redcorn will be there to challenge such a decision.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Woods County judge accepts guilty plea in his chambers, not in packed courtroom

A Woods County judge refused to explain why a guilty plea in a first-degree murder case was accepted in his chambers Wednesday instead of in the courtroom packed with family and friends of the victim, The Enid News and Eagle reported Thursday.

“Wherever I am is open court,” Judge Ray Dean Linder told the newspaper. “The attorneys for both sides and the defendant all agreed to do it in chambers. It became an auxiliary courtroom."

To say that his chambers had become an open court is an insult to the family and friends of the victim and to the general public.

If his chambers had become an open court, why didn’t he conduct the proceeding in the Alva courtroom described as standing room only?

How would the public have known that his chambers had become an open court? Did he or a bailiff announce that to those in the courtroom?

What would have happened if all the people in the courtroom had wanted to attend the proceeding taking place in his chambers? How many people could have fit into that room?

The courtroom doesn’t belong to the prosecutor, defendant or even a judge who's served on the bench since 1967. It belongs to the public — those folks who were sitting in the courtroom wondering what was going on when the judge was supposed to be hearing some 40 motions in the case.

That more than 60 people would attend just to observe motions being heard demonstrates how important this case was to the community. (KOCO reported that more than 85 people showed up at the courthouse to support the victim's family.)

Witnessing first-hand that justice is served has a significant therapeutic effect on communities. (See Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 570-71 (1980))

But on Wednesday, the victim's family and friends were left with asking questions of District Attorney Hollis Thorp and Assistant District Attorney Westline Ritter after the guilty plea was announced.

“I know it was disappointing to the victim’s family,” Ritter said. “The state ordered transcripts so the family could read the guilty plea. There was so much support for (murder victim) Nathan Lyon there. He was a football player at Waynoka. They even had football players from other schools there to support him. His sister, Korbi, wore his football jersey from when he was chosen to be on the eight-man all-star team.”

If it were only a matter of knowing the outcome of a proceeding or trial, then our judicial system would operate behind closed doors. But it doesn’t.

Linder, 75, is one of the longest-sitting trial judges in the state, having served on the bench for 43 years, according to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

He's running unopposed for his seat in the November general election.

Linder's undoubtably popular in the area, having served as the radio play-by-play man for Northwestern Oklahoma State University sports for 28 years, hosted a local TV sports program from NWOSU, and as a member of NWOSU’s Sports Hall of Fame, sought-after public speaker and an admired jewelry maker.

He's an award-winning judge described by the OBA as a leader in northwestern Oklahoma and the state's judiciary.

But Woods County residents should be questioning his decision to accept a guilty plea to first-degree murder in his private chambers rather than in their courtroom.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Tulsa judges remove signs barring public from courtrooms

After being questioned this week by the Tulsa World, two Tulsa County judges removed signs denying the public access to their courtrooms, the newspaper reported today.

Three signs outside Special Judge Charles Hogshead's courtroom and chambers had stated: "Plaintiffs and defendants in courtroom only please."

Presiding District Judge Tom Thornbrugh told the newspaper the signs were "not clear enough" and were "inartfully expressed."

The Tulsa World also inquired about a sign on the door of Special Judge Rodney Sparkman's courtroom stating that because of space constraints, "only petitioners, respondents and attorneys allowed. If your name is not on the docket do not enter the courtroom."

Sparkman told the newspaper that "since this sign has been brought to our attention it has been removed."

(Sparkman was the judge who agreed to seal the divorce records of then-mayoral candidate Dewey Bartlett Jr. in September.)

The judges said the signs were an effort to deal with crowded courtrooms, but Thornbrugh said a better way would be developed to address the problem.

A little more than two years ago, similar signs were removed from outside Rogers County courtrooms only after The Oklahoman inquired about them.

But publicity by newspapers shouldn't be required to protect the public's right of access to courtrooms.

That courtrooms are open the public "has long been recognized as an indispensable attribute of an Anglo-American trial," the US Supreme Court said 30 years ago. (Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 568 (1980))

“Closed trials breed suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns disrespect for law,” then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia. “Open trials assure the public that procedural rights are respected, and that justice is afforded equally.”

Open trials discourage “perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality.” They also have a “significant community therapeutic value, … providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion.”

Closing courtrooms hurts not only the public but also criminal defendants, who are guaranteed the right to a public trial by the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and by the Oklahoma Constitution. (OKLA. CONST. art. II, § 20)

In 1948, the Criminal Court of Appeals in Oklahoma said “public trial” means what the expression implies:

[A] public trial is a trial at which the public is free to attend. It is not essential to the right of attendance that a person be a relative of the accused, an attorney, a witness, or a reporter for the press, nor can those classes be taken as the exclusive representatives of the public. Men may have no interest whatever in the trial, except to see how justice is done in the courts of their country.”

(Neal v. State, 192 P.2d 294, 296-97 (Okla. Crim. App. 1948))

That shouldn't be news to today's trial judges.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism