Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Also, I know we discussed the issues here. I don't
know if you would want to see anything else for
the record regards to your your request, if.
Speaker 3: I might very briefly, your honor again, as I indicated
to the court on the record at sidebar, and to
Miss Sprague and Miss Buckingham and mister Reddington, thank you,
first of all, Judge for the opportunity to be heard.
As everyone is aware, I'm not here as a lawyer
representing the Commonwealth. Neither am I here as a lawyer
in any way representing the defendant, and on behalf of
Patrick Clancy, the father of the three child victims in
this case, he recognizes, and I recognize on his behalf,
that he has no authority, no standing, and no intention
of suggesting this court or to the attorneys how to
try their case, how to conduct direct or cross examination,
and perhaps most importantly, what evidence or exhibits should be
introduced during the trial. Mister Clancy, respectfully, Judge, is not
seeking to close the courtroom at any time during the trial.
Mister Clancy is not seeking to address the admissibility of
any evidence or to exclude any evidence from the jury,
and he's not in any way seeking to prejudice the
Commonwealth or the defendant in any way. What mister Clancy
is seeking, through counsel, your honor, respectfully, is to restrict,
in a very limited way, the display and access to
certain specific limited items of evidence and exhibits at trial,
to the jury, to the court, to counsel, to the
court reporter, to the session clerk, to the court officers,
that is, the necessary parties who will be involved in
trying the case. And I, respectfully, Judge, I suggest that,
pursuant to the so called Massachusetts Victims Rights Bill and
other statutes and cases with which the Court is familiar.
As a victim, as a family member of the three
victims in this case, mister Clancy respectfully has an opportunity
and a right to be heard through me or through
his council, I suggest to the Court that certain items
of physical evidence or certain exhibits ought be restricted from
dissemination and distribution, quite frankly locally, nationally and internationally, as
is the case in this day and age, and for
purposes of this hearing, Respectfully, Judge, I would ask the court,
and I would ask that the record reflect that the
recording of the so called nine to one one call
allegedly made by mister Clancy be marked or be included
as as an exhibit for purposes of this particular request.
I would also ask, respectfully, Your Honor, that any photographs
of the three victims in this case, whether taken prior
to the alleged incident, whether so called scene images, whether
photographs or video recordings of the three victims, or any
so called autopsy related photographs of the victims, be marked
for purposes of this hearing. Likewise, Your Honor, respectfully, I
would ask on behalf of mister Clancy that the clothing
being warned by the three victims during the course of
the alleged incident also be reviewed by the Court and
marked his exhibits. And Lastly, your Honor respectfully, given the
background that I summarized for the Court and Council on
the record at sidebar, I would ask that the material
that I have submitted to your Honor from Patrick Clancy
and correspondence that I've shared with both the prosecution and
the defense and the Court and have submitted to your
Clerk be also marked as an exhibit, and that it
be subject to the motion to impound, which I have
filed on behalf of mister Clancy, given the nature of
that correspondence. In short, your Honor, I am asking that
based on the law, based on your Honor's ability under
the rules of impoundment and specifically the rules I understand
it on behalf of mister Clancy, and is cited by
your Honor in your initial order, which I believe is
dock at number one eleven entitled Order pursuant to Supreme
Judicial Court Rule one one nine, that your Honor does
have the discretion to limit certain recording and certain transmitting
of proceedings during the course of a trial, and specifically,
as your Honor knows that rule. Supreme Judicial Court Rule
one one nine, entitled Electronic Access by the news media
to court proceeding, states in one part that a judge
may limit or temporarily suspend such access by the news
media if it appears that such coverage will create a
substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other serious
harmful consequence, and the Supreme Judicial Court rule goes on
to say a judge may impose other limitations necessary to
protect the right of any party to a fair trial,
or the safety or the well being of any party,
witness or jury. I suggested to the Court that under
those provisions, upon reviewing each of those four different categories
of potential evidence and the correspondence from mister Clancy, that
certain limiting rules should be adopted by the Court and
imposed on the media in this case. Lastly, Judge I
refer the Court respectfully to two specific cases in the
Commonwealth which respectfully did not rise to the level of
the extraordinary nature and facts in this case. One of
which Judge was a case involving the alleged sexual assault
of a young child which was tried in Middlesex County
several years ago, and after the conviction and after the case,
a private documentary filmmaker sought access to the recordings of
the witnesses who testified in court, and ultimately the s
JAC found that the trial court's conclusion that the privacy
interests and the emotional harm to the victim and her
family outweighed the First Amendment right of the media or
a documentary film member to get access to the actual
recording live voices in the courtroom, and instead the s
JAC Justice Gantce indicated that the proper mechanism, given the
circumstances of that case was to allow the documentary film
member or the media access to the transcript, that is
the written word. Likewise, in that case is Commonwealth versus
Winfield W I N F I E L D. Similarly,
your honor, I respectfully direct the Court's attention on behalf
of mister Clancy to a case tried in Essex County
Commonwealth versus CHISHOLM H I S M, in which then
Trial Judge Lowe heard emotion to suppress when a there
was a videotape and a recording of a defendant statement,
and ultimately the media sought access to the videotape statement
to disseminate and distribute outside the courtroom, and the s
JC ultimately upheld Justice Lowe's decision at the trial court
level to allow the media access to a transcript of
the videotape and a transcript of the defendant statements, but
not the actual videotape. Given that precedent, given your honors discretion,
given the spirit of the Supreme Judicial Court rule that
applies to the electronic recordings of proceedings in your courtroom,
I end as I began and asked the Court on
behalf of mister Clancy, that certain limiting instructions to the
media would be appropriate with respect to the nine to
one one recording of mister Clancy's voice, certain photographs of
the three trial victims, and the clothing worn by the
three trial victims in this case, and again on behalf
of mister Clancy, I thank your Honor for the opportunity
to be heard.
Speaker 2: BI Counsel, Thank you, Trudy Spray, Thank you Honor.
Speaker 4: With regard to the nine one one call, Your Honor,
I believe it's a public record available on a public
records request, but I would defer to the court in
terms of how you want to restrict publication of the
nine one one call during the trial or they are after,
as long as the come Wealth is still allowed to
show or play rather the recording for the jury, as
the Court has previously allowed that motion. Regarding photographs the children,
we had already addressed the autopsy photographs. The Commonwealth was
going to request impowerment of those, and we would agree
that they should not be broadcast or photographed in any way.
Crime scene photographs. The children had already been removed from
the home when the crime scene photographs and video were taken,
so they will not appear in those photographs. The only
blood in those photographs would be the purported blood of
the defendant in the bedroom and on the exterior of
the home, and then a small amount of blood from
Core in the basement. In terms of pre incident photos,
there has been mass publication of photos of the children already,
but I would defer to the court on that as well.
And regarding the clothing of the victims in this case,
the clothing would be a shirt and pants that Dawson
was wearing, pajamas and a bathrobe that Core was wearing.
There's a small amount of bodily fluid on the pajamas
and then pajamas that Callen was wearing. But although some
of the material has been cut as they were cut
away from the children as ems were working on them
trying to save them, there's nothing there's nothing about the
clothing that I think would just the need for restriction
of publication of those items. So that's the Commonalts opinion.
Speaker 2: All right, Council, thank you. At Treaty Readington, it's called
Savis Bade Judge.
Speaker 1: I have been in this court every time we've had
pre trial hearing, indicating to the court that the circumstances
of the death is not in dispute. The circumstances of
this horrific act are not in dispute. Repeatedly, the government
has argued that they have a right to try their case,
to present their revidence. Sure they do. But you know,
even though we're in a court, let's talk a little
bit about humanity. Let's talk a little bit about how
we should try this case. I have indicated repeatedly that
we stipulate to every piece of evidence that they want.
I have respectfully objected to you with the introduction of
the stuff going into the trial. I understand you're ruling,
and quite frankly, it makes sense you're trying your case.
What I can't fathom is the district attorney's intent to
put a circus in front of this jury that's calculated
to just inflame the passions of the jury, repeatedly placing
in evidence items such as having Patrick Clancy, who's a
young man who has suffered one of the worst tragedies
that anyone could ever suffer. How that guy is still
an emotional not an emotional basket cases beyond me, and
he has been. But nevertheless, he is trying hard to
move on with his life. He has, as the court
is aware, they're divorced, he's remarried, he has a family,
he has his extended family. You're unheard statements, and I
know for a fact that it's true that his family,
totally innocent people have nothing whatsoever to do with this case,
are being harassed daily by news media, The New York
Post and all the rest of these types of salacious
news media. Outside the door. This is his family. Some
of them are in California. They have nothing to do
with this case, but nevertheless they are being hounded by
the media. And the district Attorney wants to put that
guy on the witness stand and show little onesies with
bodily fluid of his child, and they want to have
him stand there. Oh, they're going to let him stand
in the hallway while we listen to the nine one
one call.
Speaker 2: This is ready to nets. That's another issue. That's another motion.
The question we have right now, respectfully, is mister Meyer's
request as to how we should deal with this regards
to the media.
Speaker 1: I agree with mister Meyer's request, as I told you
with the cybbar, I think it's very appropriate. I think
he argued it effectively. I think that your runner is
well aware that you have the authority under the s
JC rules to enter limiting orders if you will as
to publication as to what media can publish, what photographs
they can look at and report. And I agree with
what he had indicated to you in his agument. All right,
all right, but I still want to say that I
think it's reprehensible the way the government is trying this case.
Speaker 4: If I may, I'd just like to say that I
don't understand why Defense console would want to brush past
what happened to these children, whitewash away. Here's something else.
Speaker 2: Here's what we're going to do. We're going to add
that now, all right, this he.
Speaker 4: Gets an opportunity to say it.
Speaker 2: No, I stopped that, And if you want to address
that in a different way, then we've got another motion
in about five minutes that we're going to probably be
talking about that. So let's talk about that. Then this
is a you know, I let counsel go and think
it was going to wrap back up, and I didn't
see that it was going to wrap back up in
regards to UH the request. So that's why I stopped it,
all right, this is not accomplishing anything in regards to
the question of access to these four pieces of evidence.
So I've got everybody's position, I've heard the arguments from counsel.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to take
it under advisement and then what I'm going to do
is issue in order probably tomorrow morning. And the parties know.
I've listened to the tape, that nine one one tape.
I have looked at the autopsy photographs. I have looked
at a crime scene video, which I imagine is where
the crime scene pictures will come from. And so I'm
familiar with the universe of the evidence that we're dealing
with right now. I want to take tonight go over
the arguments from part That's why I'm stopping a little
bit everybody. I just wanted to be focused on that issue.
So I'm going to take this matter the request of
mister Clancy under advisement and will be issuing in order
in regards to that request sometime tomorrow morning. All right,