Home 
Opinion Editorials Judge wisely reverses himself
Judge wisely reverses himself
|
Circuit Court Judge Phillip Mendiguren deserves criticism for his
ruling — which he later reversed — that the press not be allowed to
report on testimony at the Donna Dunning attempted murder trial until
after it was over. Mendiguren issued the order at the start of the Wallowa County trial, then took it back after hearing arguments from lawyers and representatives of local media. Defense attorney Wes Williams reminded the judge that freedom of the press is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is troubling such a reminder was necessary. When Mendiguren stated he didn’t “know the law on this,” his thoughts were probably less on the constitutional issue and more on the question of whether there were legal circumstances under which he could or should impose a gag order. We’ll give him a little credit for that. But the simple truth is, in our great democracy, gag orders are sometimes imposed on the participants in a trial, including jurors, but almost never on the news media. Anyone confused about the issue, including judges and prosecutors, can get a clarification at the website of the First Amendment Center. There it says judges have to meet almost impossibly high standards to keep the press from reporting on a trial. The standards are deliberately set high so that freedom of the press and freedom of speech will not be easily trampled. We quote: “A gag order on the media, courts have held, is a last resort that can be considered only after other measures available to ensure a fair trial — such as change of venue, sequestration of the jury, extensive questioning of potential jurors, postponement of the trial, emphatic jury instructions and gag orders on trial participants — are found inadequate to protect the parties’ rights.” In the Dunning trial, it isn’t clear whose idea it was to try to muzzle the press. It is clear that District Attorney Mona Williams and her assistant prosecutor Scott Jackson were very much in favor. Given the standards that have to be met, their argument that press coverage would jeopardize future witnesses was absurdly weak. Tragic as it was, the Dunning trial involved members of a well-established and very well known Wallowa County family. Many in the county had strong feelings about the trial and its participants. Simply put, the public interest was great. People certainly had the right to know what was happening. The press undoubtedly had a duty and a lawful right to report it, on the spot, as it developed. In our country, a criminal trial is almost never an event to be conducted behind closed doors or otherwise hidden from public view. People have the right to attend trials, the right to gather information about trials, the right to speak and write about trials. That’s well-established. It’s ominous that Mendiguren was willing — if even for only a few moments — to try to sweep those rights aside. |
