The Denver Post
Media drop Bryant lawsuit
Wednesday, August 04, 2004 -
The media organizations fighting a do-not-publish order from the judge in the Kobe Bryant sexual-assault case dropped their U.S. Supreme Court challenge on Tuesday after the disputed transcripts were released by the court.
"We got the relief we were seeking, which is that these transcripts not be subject to a prior restraint," said Steve Zansberg, an attorney for the seven media outlets, including The Denver Post. Late Monday, District Judge Terry Ruckriegle released the second installment of the transcripts, which stemmed from a closed-door hearing on the woman's private life and which mistakenly were e- mailed to the media outlets last month. Ruckriegle quickly issued an order prohibiting the publication of the material, prompting a First Amendment dispute. The Colorado Supreme Court, in a split decision, sided with Ruckriegle's ruling, terming the prior restraint "appropriate" to ensure a fair trial, but it instructed the judge to release a redacted version of the transcripts containing material deemed admissible at trial. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer agreed, suggesting that the dispute might be resolved if the edited transcripts were released. On Monday, Ruckriegle released the transcripts while expressing his misgivings about piercing the secrecy of a closed-door hearing. First Amendment experts acknowledge that while the transcripts now have been made public, the greater battle over prior restraints remains. "I think it is a victory for the press," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va. "My understanding was that Judge Ruckriegle recognized that he had to release this stuff because ... Breyer pretty much said this (the prior restraint) was very suspect." There is still a concern that the media should have pursued the case to the full U.S. Supreme Court because still standing is a new legal precedent in Colorado that seemingly allows judges to restrain the media from reporting on information obtained legally from the courts. But Zansberg said: "Looking at the totality of the judicial decisions made here, we're comfortable that these events are not likely to recur and that the doctrine that presumes prior restraints are unconstitutional remains intact." |