EDITORIAL: Local judge backs off constitutionally dubious orders
A Clark County jurist needs a law school refresher course on the First Amendment.
District Court Judge Jessica Peterson will preside over the trial of Nathan Chasing Horse, an actor who appeared in the Oscar-winning movie “Dances of the Wolves” and is now accused of sexual assault. Prosecutors say he ran a cult called The Circle and falsely portrayed himself as a medicine man to facilitate the abuse of as many as six Native American women.
The trial has understandably attracted plenty of media attention. And as jury selection began in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Judge Peterson issued what she called a “decorum order,” attempting to dictate how news organizations could cover the proceedings.
The order was an affront to an open judiciary and a free press.
Among the restrictions: No interviews with parties of witnesses at the Regional Justice Center and a demand that news outlets “not disclose any personal information” without permission of the victims, witnesses or jurors. Judge Peterson had previously said that the media could face reporting limitations in exchange for the “privilege of being in the courtroom.”
News flash for the judge: Observing courtroom proceedings is not a “privilege.” It’s a right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which ensures that the accused receives a “speedy and public trial.” Only in extraordinary circumstances — and after an open hearing — may a trial or judicial proceeding typically be closed. In addition, judges have no authority to dictate to media outlets their coverage tactics or strategies, including who they may interview or what they may publish.
The Founders recognized that a transparent judicial system is the bedrock of a free society and a vital means of promoting justice and accountability.
As Las Vegas First Amendment attorney Maggie McLetchie noted, “While the court can control the courtroom, barring the media from talking to people on the premises is patently unconstitutional.”
Marc Randazza, an attorney and legal commentator who has appeared on CNN and Fox News, piled on. “To say you can’t publish personally identifying information about a victim, witness or juror, I don’t see where she’s got the authority to do that,” he said, adding “I don’t know if she’s thought this through.”
Faced with protests from the Review-Journal over her order, Judge Peterson reversed course this week, issuing an amended order softening her edicts to recognize the right of news organizations to access and cover court proceedings. For this, she deserves credit. But even that step forward prompts the obvious question: What was Judge Peterson thinking in the first place?
