Judge Makes His Case for Secrecy in L.A. Courts

With the curtain of secrecy around the courthouse becoming more impenetrable every day, I went over there Friday to confront a man considered by the press to be one of secrecy’s most dedicated advocates, Superior Court Judge John H. Reid.

It wasn’t the confrontation I’d expected.

Reid was gruff, even grumpy, at first, while he gave me his views on The Times and the media in general when we talked in his chambers.

I listened with the sympathy I always try to show those who feel wronged by a giant newspaper. That off his chest, Reid, the supervising criminal courts judge, became a pleasant but unyielding debating opponent.

I wanted to know why Judge Reid imposed secrecy orders--sealing documents in one major case involving a celebrity and deleting the name of the celebrity victim from the documents of another.

This seemed to be another step in a pattern of secrecy in Los Angeles courthouses, including sealing files in other cases and withholding the names of jurors in all trials.

*

I didn’t discuss all this with Judge Reid, just the cases in which he was directly involved.

He had sealed the transcripts of testimony before the grand jury that indicted Mikail Markhasev for the murder of Ennis Cosby, Bill Cosby’s son, a decision that was upheld by an appellate court. Grand jury testimony, taken in secret, is usually released after an indictment.

Reid said he sealed the testimony because if prospective jurors read or heard about the proceedings, Markhasev could be deprived of his right to a fair and impartial trial. Television and papers around the world would be filled with the testimony.

It is the judge’s responsibility, Reid said, that “when a jury is picked, it will not have predetermined the case based upon what they did not actually see in court. You want to do everything possible to assure that the decision is made based on what they saw and heard by way of evidence in court.”

He asked me if I wouldn’t want the same protection if I were a defendant on trial.

I replied that what seemed to him a protection actually could hurt the defendant.

The Spielberg stalking case may be an example of the potential for that.

This year, the grand jury indicted Jonathan F. Norman, 31, for allegedly stalking Steven Spielberg. Norman had served three years in state prison after pleading no contest to assaulting several Jewish immigrants in Santa Monica. He has pleaded not guilty to the stalking charge.

Spielberg’s name was removed from the indictment and replaced with “John Doe.”

Reid said he did this at the request of the victim. He said his action was authorized by state law, which specifically authorizes withholding of names of juveniles and victims of rape and stalking. His reasoning is strongly disputed by media lawyers, including The Times’, who are fighting his decision in court.

I can understand why Spielberg would not want the publicity. It could inspire nuts all over L.A.--or the world.

But to show how secrecy can foul up the system, Norman’s name had even been removed from the copy of the indictment sent to the defendant’s lawyer, a deputy public defender.

Since everything about the case is sealed and gagged, I couldn’t determine whether this was intentional or a mistake.

I heard from a source that the public defender’s office learned Spielberg’s identity soon after, but there is potential harm to the defense from even a short delay. If his lawyer had known from the start that Spielberg was the victim, he might have handled things differently, since attorneys say high-profile cases present unique problems of their own.

*

Judge Reid told me that most of the information about the cases would come out after the trials. What’s wrong with that? he asked.

Plenty, I replied. For one thing, nobody cares about old news. Second, the media’s job is to be a watchdog over events as they happen. We are supposed to find out if a defendant is being railroaded or poorly defended now, not months or years later.

Beyond these two cases, I wondered about the broader question of growing secrecy in court proceedings,

To Judge Reid, the current media-court debate over the issue is another chapter in the endless conflict between the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of the press and of speech, and the 6th Amendment, assuring defendants of a fair and impartial trial.

“The press takes the point of view that freedom of the press is controlling,” Reid said, while judges are controlled by a duty to ensure the defendant a fair and impartial trial.

Where the judge and I part company is that I believe the accurate and fair reporting of all court proceedings is the defendant’s greatest protection.