Attorney calls reporter to stand, tries to exclude her from courtroom during testimony of other witnesses

Bigheart Times Publisher Louise Red Corn recently found herself being called to testify during a preliminary hearing that she was covering and then having to defend her right to be in the Osage County courtroom.
 
Red Corn reported that she hadn't been subpoenaed by defense attorney Gentner Drummond and hadn't witnessed the alleged assault at issue in the hearing.
 
Red Corn told Special District Court Judge Stuart Tate that Drummond's announcement of her as his witness was no more than a ploy to prevent the newspaper from covering the public hearing.
 
Red Corn and Drummond had a run-in nearly a year ago when she questioned why an entire Osage County divorce case, including the names of the couple, lawyers and judge, had been closed to the public. Even the order sealing the case was closed.
 
Drummond was the attorney who had sought the closure. The case file was opened after Red Corn justifiably raised hell over the secrecy.
 
He wasn't any more successful in keeping Red Corn out of the courtroom during the preliminary hearing earlier this month.
 
In Red Corn's story on the hearing, she noted that Drummond was acting as defense attorney for his cousin, Thatcher Drummond, who is charged with assaulting a state trooper, escape from arrest and a half-dozen misdemeanors, ranging from DUI and possession of marijuana to running a stop sign.
 
She also noted that Thatcher Drummond's family "is among the wealthiest in Osage County, owning tens of thousands of acres on which they run cattle and wild horses, in addition to having other businesses."
 
At the beginning of the hearing, Gentner Drummond asked the judge to exclude witnesses from the hearing. Then, he announced that he was going to call Red Corn as a witness and asked the judge to tell her to leave the courtroom.
 
Good luck with that.
 
After Red Corn's objection, Drummond and First Assistant District Attorney Mike Fisher spent 10 minutes with the judge in his chambers. Drummond emerged to announce that he was withdrawing his request and that he would "invite Ms. Red Corn to sit through these proceedings and take copious notes."
 
She did.
 
When it was her turn to testify, Red Corn said she hadn't interviewed the trooper or his superiors. The morning after the incident, she had gone to the Sheriff's Office to ask about it, had seen the trooper there and made a comment to him about an injury under his eye. The trooper didn't say a word to her, Red Corn testified.
 
Thatcher Drummond was bound over for an arraignment. A pre-trial date was set for Aug. 16.
 
Wonder if Gentner Drummond will try to keep her out of that courtroom as well?
 

 
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.