Introduction

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: