Closed Hearing Fought in Slaying Case

In the latest test of public access to the courts in the post-Simpson era, a defense attorney asked a judge to close a preliminary hearing for a woman accused of murder in an alleged botched scheme to kill her prosecutor husband.

Deputy Public Defender Marie Girolamo, who represents Woodland Hills lawyer Nicole Garza, also asked for a gag order in a sealed legal motion that is being challenged by the Los Angeles Times.

Since the court papers remained under seal Wednesday, the defense attorney’s arguments for closing the hearing and silencing the participants could not be determined.

But San Fernando Municipal Court Commissioner Gerald T. Richardson disclosed their existence in court as he delayed Garza’s preliminary hearing until January. He also scheduled a hearing Dec. 10 on whether it should be conducted behind closed doors.

Quelling pretrial publicity appears to be the defense attorney’s primary concern; copies of news articles were attached to the motion. Richardson said he would decide today whether to unseal Girolamo’s motion so that a lawyer for The Times could argue against the closed hearing and gag order requests.

Garza, a 32-year-old mother of three, is being held without bail, charged with the murder of her sister and attempted murder of her husband, Deputy City Atty. Jose Garza. The husband, who told police he mistook his sister-in-law Lynette LaFontaine-Trujillo for a burglar after his wife sent him to the garage for ice cream, is expected to be a key witness for the prosecution at the hearing.

The judge seemed surprised by the appearance in court Wednesday of Times attorney Karlene Goller, who opposed the defense’s sealing, gag and closing requests. Since prosecutors had not objected, Richardson said, “I expected this to be pro forma today,”

Prosecutors have taken no official position, although Deputy Dist. Atty. Dale E. Cutler said the general policy of his office is to conduct the public’s business in open court.

His supervisor, Deputy Dist. Atty. Stephen L. Cooley, told Richardson that for now, the media are “left in a position of not being able to respond” to the defense motions. Sealing motions without providing notice “offends my sense of due process,” Cooley added.

“This is totally outrageous,” said Douglas E. Mirell, an L.A. attorney who specializes in media and 1st Amendment issues. “It bespeaks a kind of arrogance born perhaps of the Simpson case that seems to impel lawyers to make requests which fly in the face of settled principles established by no less than the United States Supreme Court.” Calling the move to close the courtroom “patently unconstitutional,” Mirell added: “There’s an absolute right for the public and press to attend all aspects of criminal cases.”

Terry Franke of the California First Amendment Coalition said preliminary hearings are rarely closed to the public. When they are, he added, it is only after one of the litigants, usually the prosecution, demonstrates a very compelling reason.