Blog Post #2:
The court case of Ahn Vs. Oahu Publications is clear and evident to be based around one very key facet, which is public access. As an attorney for Ahn, I want to make it clear that my client Judge Karen SS. Ahn has every right by law and the framework of the constitution to be able to disclose this information, and not provide public access.
In this case, there was no possibility of Christoper Deedy could be help accountable to have a fair and impartial trial, thought it is recognized by the court that the public is allowed to attend criminal trials. The sealing of the court proceedings was justified by Ahn, and completely constitutional.
In this case, Deedy did not object to the courtroom not being open to the public or the sealing of the transcripts in the court proceedings, so the basis of unconstitutionality are not upheld. There is complete fairness only seen in this trial because my client chose to not allow public access.
Both the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and the Hawaii News Now did not object to have their public access right taken away by my client. Also, proceedings that occur between a judge and jury during deliberations are the exception of the rule to public access towards the press. Lastly, my client is not wrong because no violation of the First Amendment has been breaches. There is no claim to right of access because there are not enough events that become in the courtroom to specifically address a claim.
The judges that will be in my client’s favor will be much more liberal heavy. And if the defense wishes to bring up the handshake incident, I can say without hesitation that I knew when I made the decision to ask a few of what they saw as “insufficient” questions to that juror, that I would be help up in court of law by the Furutani Standard.
Sources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1673205.html
http://judgepedia.org/Karen_S.S._Ahn