weeks following prime the want horseman started to investigate the incident and executed some search warrants in connection with in connection with the investigation eventually a presser made and two brothers christopher and jason harris were can work arrested in connection with the crime and also charge by the month later the prosecution made a return on the search warrant the search warrant applied to the home where the publicly public records of parks office that hearing this one of the men intervened in the case and also submitted briefs and after more briefing on the issue and arguments before the trial court the trial court then decided to open the complaint and the order for search warrant as well as the search warrant itself but at the same time the trial court declined to look at the judicial c e o on the affidavit entered in support of the complaint or search warrant on the inventory and on the return of the mistaken about the nature of the press request here and i'm going to read from the traffic's analysis it is the evidence presented in court that the public has a right of access the public does not have a right to access all the how these have been handled and it may have been the publicity attached to this case or your legal action and that brings us to the point where we want to look at that as well right now most of the cases were the issue of whether or not there was a right as the search warrant where those cases where this comes up there are publicity cases where they are cases where the public really cares about learning what's in the have by the testimony of the witness a crime not necessarily because it's not necessarily a given that the parties will actually decide to produce that at trial just because there was a search this doesn't just apply to the prosecution's investigation this is the defendant's right to a fair trial as well that is absolutely correct and that the supreme court actually recently held that the defendant has a right independent of the press it's right that the trial be public but that defendant also has an independent right to a public trial but one of the defendants here right first amendment right of access and the other case they cite us versus eastern airlines says the public has a common law right to inspect and says nothing about the first amendment so there's not no cases in their brief to respond to the case discretion is subject to rigorous standards such as compelling interests that is predicated on showing that first amendment right of access applies in this context and the case or if the first amendment right that's just doesn't apply we is to get it sent back for a more definite seal and so that's the state's argument on that issue and with respect to sealed findings that puts courts into the lemmas if those have to be public because they're required to explain their findings on the record but if those have to be on its own set the manner for rehearing based on its record said additional matters set forth you know our motion to seal and then there was a hearing january of two thousand and ten and the court's new order in march twenty fourth two thousand and ten in the march twenty fourth two thousand and ten order the court makes reference to the procedural history of the case and references the hundred  judge's new word or as a procedural history which the court had undertaken when the court entered its march twenty fourth quarter two thousand and ten it said for specific and detailed information about how the information in the affidavit the return in the inventory would specifically impair in prejudice the defense these were not specifically brought out original were came out sealing the on the information and the records that were requested the judges were specifically addresses the amount of discovery that's being received by the defense and i think your reference is two or three thousand pages that were actually just received by the defense the day of the january hearing was approximately one hundred seventy one hundred eighty eight who are also notes extensive discovery is common that represented in the judge's order based on the statements from the state about twenty five percent of the suspected discovered so a considerable amount of discovery was separate from the judge's ruling with respect to tab of the mine the judge's order cannot be read to impose or at least to set twenty seven day period with which the defense could complete their investigation d n a had not even been received as a matter of fact it's still not received pending the discovery was incredibly and is incredibly  the item discovered by whom the location and specifics i would submit that the the these sealed documents and the need for their sealing would terminate specified by the judge will lay to evidence obtained and the victims where they were located how they're located and specifics regarding that in a murder trial to speak for the morning no i'm not i'm just saying at least based on what we can see i mean we were not asserting her interest that the judge did that i'm just saying when you asked about when when there is no longer be a need for it will be but that evidence came out well the point is is that why should the birth be on the press ask why isn't there something in the order get that which may be presumptively weapon to begin with well if it were in fact a case of the court felt there needed to be a specific time frame not necessarily days i don't think it could be done in days but events such as the occurs then in fact that would be the appropriate time and then the burden would be on the people to seek to extend it if there were some that's correct and then the court would have to consider those released on addition i would like to win the south and i think it presses the press's issue about the allegation the court was mistaken about referencing discovery on i think it was page nine of the court's opinion i was in it with the court's referencing there is the amount of detail and specifics in this affidavit which i do believe it's been her practice in the past not to release this information but under the court of clerks and says it's to be assumed or presumed open the public but many of them the the information provided is is so detail so formally that these things are not even matters that the state's attorney or defense can even present to the public on their own meaning the supreme court rules of the story and i believe it's three point six would prohibit it from either party or presenting this to the press we couldn't do it on our own but but if there is if i could move briefly  if the court says no you can't seal it they really get all that information out to the press and the public the defense can do nothing about and yet you know always the whole purpose behind this discovery investigation how might prejudice it now and i'm not arguing this point but i think there is still have to be consideration about the issue raised by the trial court meaning the minor and whether or not there was a separate basis because we wouldn't really have any legitimate interest in saying it's going to end our investigation a prejudice our client doesn't care thank you that evidence needs to be presented by the parties in favor of sealing not by the parties parties who try to exercise their right to access judicial records talked about the hundreds of pages of discovery and d v d s and d n a but there's no evidence in the record that somehow relates that any of this media or evidence has any relevant to this particular search warrant and that's what we're looking for that's what needs to be the factual basis that that has to be articulated by the trial judge justifying the seal as we court act and we ask if you decide that one does not apply that you hold in our favor on the basis of the of the other or at least explore the if the breach in the extent of the application of our case of venue that look around cape court is very clear that those it's essential for the trial court to consider alternatives and reasonable alternatives in the us supreme court recently recently said in this presley versus georgia in two sentences saying that there really wouldn't be a point and that was the extent to which he even explored alternatives to the ceiling and out we asked that that we submit that that is an independen steelers going to end indefinite seals are not are not narrow and they're not tailored indefinite means and limited it's the exact opposite of being mar taylor and also there's a problem with the sealed findings in this case the trial court sealed a portion of its finding and maybe a large portion because we don't know what it looks like or how large it is we haven't had access to it but  briefs are very clear that the information which becomes the basis of a of course decision enters the public record and here that was not