The Honorable Karen Ahn V. Oahu Publications Inc.

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

First Amendment Right We Can Live Without

In regards to the first amendment, none of our privileges should go without necessary thought, and would change the world dramatically as far as what is necessary to survive legally under the constitution.

I believe though, that if it was necessary, the one first amendment right we could live without is the right to petition. In my opinion, as citizens we don’t get much overlook in regards to petition anyways. Petitions must have a massive amount of signatures, and that might not necessarily reflect all of the thoughts and perspectives present in that manner. It also would be sort of unnecessary if needing to take something else out because we would still have the right to assemble as citizens, and sometimes actions speak louder than words.

I don’t believe that any one first amendment right should be more important than the others because they all play a vital role in understanding of our own rights, but if we had to expel one, this would be the most logical one to do in terms of what is absolutely necessary and what could be dismissed.

We never want to give away any of our unalienable rights, but this one would be a little easier of a blow. People could still protest, just not call to action.

Introduction

10411850_10152552570520610_2790679917731492023_n

 

Hello,

I am Lindsey J. Oates, petitioning attorney for Judge Karen S.S. Ahn. My thoughts on the basis of the first amendment are as follows. My client has no legal obligation by law or constitution under the first amendment, and is protected by the claim that judges can protect a “compelling government interest” and may chose to close a case based on the soul discretion of herself, and bears no legal mind to have to share that information with anyone.

Also, the FOIA has no barring in this case as well. My client has no write by it to share information, as she was the judiciary in this regard and by the constitution FOIA is not covered over this matter. Media allowance of these documents and informations is deemed to the amount that the judiciary seems fit, so she is completely within her means to be able to decide not to share information, and to seal the case.

Here as some points taken from the first amendment that help to solidify the claim of my client:

“Unless specifically closed by law or a party proves that an overriding interest in justice requires closure.”

“A proceeding may be closed if the court finds, on the public record, that the defendant?s constitutional right to a fair trial is threatened. The defendant must prove that closure is required because ?substantial probability? exists that a fair trial will be impaired, that any closure or gag order will be effective, and that there is no alternative.”

In this case a fair trial would have been impaired because of the employee status of Deedy. His right to a fair trial would be selectively different than that of a normal citizen.

“Judges have wide discretion to impose gag orders on court personnel and trial participants such as parties and their lawyers.” This discretion is something my client stands by. By closing the case, she submitted to this section of the first amendment and is therefore protected by her decision.

  1. Here exists an overriding in-terest supporting sealing; –The over-riding interest here is that my client had reason to believe she should protect a gag order
  2. There is a substantial probability the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; The prejudice that would have come from this trial is apparent in that the Deedy was already being painted as a negative in police brutality
  3. The proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored; and – Judge Ahn had every right to close the case because Deedy could not be considered to have a fair trail because the ruling was INDEED narrowly tailored, as in, because of the history of racial tension between Hawaii and America, Deedy would automatically be assumed to have killed the man out of racial violence, leading to his unfair trial
  4. There is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. 

Thank you for listening and I will be back soon with more of my opinion on this matter.

Sources:

http://www.spj.org/opendoors2.asp

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/court-access.html

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-courts-and-court-records