Public access to evidence examined

Just how public should a public trial be? That is the question a Nevada Supreme Court subcommittee must answer in response to concerns someone could shoot gruesome death scene photographs, images of child pornography or other sensitive items and post them on the Internet.

"We're getting people from 'Dateline' who take pictures for their documentaries," said Clark County District Judge Valorie Vega on Thursday when the Evidence Retention and Destructions Subcommittee met in teleconference from the Supreme Court offices in Carson City and Las Vegas.

The subcommittee is part of the Supreme Court's Administrative Office of the Courts Commission on Preservation, Access, and Sealing of Court Records.

The health of court clerk personnel and members of the public is another concern because significant amounts of evidence are classified as hazardous materials, such as blood-stained clothing or controlled substances.

Nearly every clerk in attendance said they generally grant members of the public access to evidence. The exception was Bobbi Williams, chief deputy clerk in Northern Nevada's Douglas County.

Vega said the majority of requests to look at evidence in a vault comes from attorneys, followed by the media.

She said the "Dateline" use of evidence was "done in good taste," but she worried others would not be so discerning.

Her motivations go beyond personal sensibilities. Vega in a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice James Hardesty said victims of crime and their relatives have filed successful lawsuits when graphic images of trial evidence are posted online.

Vega said Nevada law considers evidence part of the public record. "There's nothing codified that says the public can't go into a vault and handle evidence ... even if it's sealed," Vega said.

Meeting Chairman Patrick Flanagan, a Washoe County district judge, questioned whether certain types of evidence should not be kept from the public out of tampering concerns.

"I don't want anyone pawing through a bag of marijuana," he said.

Flanagan said the issue would have to be addressed at the legislative level, but that will not keep the group from issuing its findings next spring.

Because of concerns raised by committee members Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, and A.D. Hopkins of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a blanket rule will not be recommended.

Instead, the responsibility to determine what evidence is sealed and what is not will remain with individual judges on a case-by-case basis.

"We're not going to issue a blanket rule," Flanagan said. "The Nevada Supreme Court set out precedent that favors disclosure over sealing."

Hopkins indicated regional television stations and news publications, including the Review-Journal, hope the rules remain unchanged, saying local media, unlike "some pulp newspapers," will behave themselves.

The group hopes to have a recommendation for the full commission early next year.

Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal. com or 702-380-8135.