Judge removes Las Vegas Review-Journal staff from courtroom
A judge removed Las Vegas Review-Journal staff from her courtroom Wednesday because they refused to promise not to name an alleged victim testifying in the Nathan Chasing Horse sexual assault trial.
An attorney for the Review-Journal plans to challenge District Judge Jessica Peterson’s ruling, which ejected two Review-Journal reporters and a photographer while allowing other news organizations and members of the public to watch the testimony.
Glenn Cook, executive editor of the Review-Journal, said that the news organization does not normally publish sexual assault victims’ names but has the right to do so if it chooses. Such decisions are made on a case by case basis, Cook said.
“(Peterson’s) serious mistakes are unheard of and outrageous,” Cook said Wednesday. “The court cannot tell the press what to report. The press decides what to publish, period.”
The victim in question, who is now an adult, has been identified in public court records. The Review-Journal has not previously published her name. The news organization was allowed to return to the courtroom after the victim finished testifying.
Chasing Horse, 49, who played Smiles a Lot in the 1990 film “Dances with Wolves,” is accused of targeting the Native American community and sexually assaulting multiple women.
Authorities say Chasing Horse, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Indian Lakota Tribe, portrayed himself as a “medicine man” and committed crimes in the U.S. and Canada while running a cult called The Circle that had up to 350 followers at its peak.
Controlling her courtroom
This isn’t the first time Peterson has tried to restrict media coverage.
In a “decorum order” on the first day of jury selection in the Chasing Horse trial, Peterson demanded, among other conditions, that the press not conduct interviews with parties or witnesses at the Regional Justice Center while the case is pending and “not disclose or publish any personal identifying information” without the permission of victims, witnesses and jurors.
She walked back her prior conditions after receiving a letter from the news organization.
Peterson said Wednesday that she had authority to make her restrictions regarding the identity of one of the alleged victims.
She then asked reporters present if they wanted the opportunity to have their attorneys be heard on her prohibition and took a break so a Review-Journal reporter could call a lawyer.
When the Review-Journal returned and explained that the news organization would not agree to withhold information disclosed in open court, the judge sounded irritated.
“Then I am going to close the courtroom or I will remove your access, because I am not going to allow this victim to be revictimized by the Las Vegas Review-Journal,” she said, adding that if the Review-Journal published the alleged victim’s name she would hold the news organization in contempt of court.
The reporter asked Peterson for time so an attorney could come to court and respond, but she refused and ejected him and two other journalists from the news organization.
“I have the right to control my courtroom,” said the judge.
‘First Amendment issue’
Maggie McLetchie, an attorney for the Review-Journal, arrived after Peterson ejected the news organization and pushed back on the ruling.
“Just because the court is overseeing a criminal case, that does not give the right to condition access to the court based on the content of reporting,” she said. “That’s the First Amendment issue, your honor. The Las Vegas Review-Journal and its reporters have journalistic ethics they abide by in their reporting. There’s no suggestion that they’ve intended to report this victim’s name.”
Rather, she said, the issue was whether the court could control what the news organization reported. The attorney told Peterson that she could not require reporters to make an agreement about what they would report as a condition of access.
Chief Deputy District Attorney William Rowles supported the judge’s stance.
“All we are asking is to protect the identity of a child who was sexually assaulted on video,” he said. “I think it’s outrageous that they’re putting up this fight and they are the only media news coverage to do so.”
Alleged victim testifies
An alleged victim besides the one subject to Peterson’s restrictions also testified Wednesday.
Although the Review-Journal typically does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault, it is choosing to name Corena Leone-LaCroix and publish her photo because she has previously given interviews to news outlets including the Review-Journal.
Peterson did not place restrictions on photographing her Wednesday.
Leone-LaCroix, who wore a black suit and spoke quietly, told jurors that she was enthralled by Chasing Horse.
He had the kind of energy that filled a room, she said. “We wanted to be around him.”
She saw him as a safe figure and felt honored when he adopted her as his granddaughter. She never questioned him or thought she could say no to him, she said.
When she was 14, her mother was diagnosed with cancer and Chasing Horse said he could help “at a cost,” she testified.
He told her, she said, that she must give up her virginity.
“He had said that it was the last good thing about me, the last pure thing about me and that, because I had started lying and talking to boys and stealing, that I was not worth anything,” she told jurors, her voice tearful.
“I said, ‘There has to be something else,’” she added. She believed if she refused, her mother would die, she said. Though she did not want to have sex with him, she did not feel she could say no, she testified.
As she spoke, at least one juror appeared to be crying.
After having sex with her, Leone-LaCroix said Chasing Horse told her it was “a sacred secret” and that her mother’s sickness would return if she divulged it.
Prosecutors have accused Chasing Horse of sexually assaulting her multiple other times.
Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com. Follow @BrighamNoble on X.
