COMMENTARY: Judge Richard Scotti’s autopsy decision was not unreasonable

I’ve read the avalanche of negative publicity and universal condemnation of Clark County District Judge Richard Scotti’s decision on blocking the release of those Mandalay Bay shooting autopsy reports. But a nagging question keeps coming to mind: What’s the other side of the story?

The case surrounds the autopsy report of shooting victim Chuck Hartfield — an off-duty police officer, military veteran, husband, father and youth football coach. Mr. Hartfield’s widow filed a lawsuit attempting to block the release of her late hero-husband’s autopsy report. The case that remains open. As such, Judge Scotti is not allowed to comment on it or defend himself.

The reason the case is still open, despite the public reports that Scotti’s decision was overturned, is that the Nevada Supreme Court decision was handed down by a three-judge panel, not the entire court. So an appeal to the full court is still possible, even though the outcome will likely be the same.

I’ve known Judge Scotti for a number of years. And I’ve found him to be reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate and a strong advocate for the rule of law. As such, the depictions of him in the press as someone hostile to the First Amendment and a coddler of criminals are totally in contradiction to the man I know.

So I did some checking, and here’s a recap of the timeline of the controversy surrounding the release of those autopsy reports.

On Jan. 31, Judge Tim Williams ordered the coroner to release the autopsy reports, with identifying information of the victims redacted. But Mr. Hartfield’s widow was reportedly unaware that her murdered husband’s gruesome autopsy report was to be made public.

When she found out, she filed a lawsuit seeking to block its release. In her petition to the court, Mrs. Hartfield expressed concern that the redactions wouldn’t be enough to protect her husband’s identity from being disclosed and her children from learning the horrific details of his death.

Unfortunately, the reports had already been forwarded to various news agencies.

This put Judge Scotti in the untenable position of having to balance the victim’s constitutional right to privacy vs. the media’s constitutional free press rights. If he erred in his decision, he erred on the side of the victim who had already been traumatized to an unimaginable level by the murder of her husband at the hands of a madman.

Indeed, had Mrs. Hartfield’s lawsuit been filed before the autopsy reports were released, the suit likely would have blocked the release pending a court decision, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But it wasn’t.

So Judge Scotti was put in the position of retroactively ordering media outlets not to publish the report to give Mrs. Hartfield’s lawsuit a chance to work its way through the system.

The Review-Journal, understandably, sued to overturn Judge Scotti’s decision. And I get it. It’s not the newspaper’s fault the reports were released. As such, they were indeed in the public domain.

However, Judge Scotti’s “clawback” decision ordering the return of the documents under such highly unusual and very unfortunate circumstances was not unprecedented or necessarily an unconstitutional exercise in prior restraint of the media.

That said, the full state Supreme Court will likely uphold the panel’s decision that the “clawback” was inappropriate in this particular circumstance. But to suggest that Judge Scotti’s decision was completely without merit is equally inappropriate.

Judge Scotti was put in an impossible situation, trying to balance the rights of victims in a highly emotional case with the rights of the press to publish information it obtained legally. And unlike Solomon, splitting the baby was not an option.

In retrospect and considering the Supreme Court panel’s ruling on the case, perhaps Judge Scotti would rule differently today.

But that’s Monday morning quarterbacking. At the time and under the circumstances, Judge Scotti reasonably and compassionately sided with the victim’s widow and children who continue to suffer through a living hell over the loss of their loved one.

Can you and I say with absolute certainty we wouldn’t have done the same?

Chuck Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.org and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com.