involved compete public interest the public's right to access court records versus the defendant's right to a fair trial embedded in the way to a fair trial and ordered them to be sealed until the jury is in him because i may ask you to break some of that down entirely about this presumption of access we're talking about common law is broader in other words there is a broader presumption of access to the court system and information facts and circumstances of a particular case would you agree that is the standard that we should be using when we look at the common law right to access claim yes i  quiet consequence the the defendant filed motions in limine in this case on those became a part of the trial court record which i mean would make them  the state's attorney represented that they did not intend to introduce evidence contained in the motions in limi i would submit to you that in a murder trial such as this it is the duty of counsel to give that we all know it's the duty to defend what sells advocacy and that contains extensive and result of of reaching could be a witness for the state attorney itself i'm not suggesting or having there's probably but the result could be a witness or the state's attorney either or purposefully revealing information contained in the motions at trial i'm talking about so you uncivility him leave those types of potentially serious effort to introduce it to trial could be him a little objection couldn't it it's possible except that when you have a ruling on emotion and limb and you have certainty  in writing under or about what is then it miscible and not admissible at least with respect to those motions so everybody knows the ground rules not just inform but with clarity see that if we would then file our motion in limine then public then the presumption would have a lot that we would have done that in our own dress to me it would be no question the presumption would apply and we would have potentially exposed that information when the trial or chose to seal that information and that was based at least in part on the fact that the state indicated it  an informal way not did not intend to introduce that information contained in that it seems to me we didn't open the door so to speak to then allow so you're not arguing then that the presumption of access doesn't apply to motions and lemony in general not in general it's only because of the request that this be filed under seal closure so they apparently have these two standards one is if they determine that a first amendment x presumption is triggered because of this idea that these has supervisory power to his own records and files public assets may be denied based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case i dozed two different analysis and how which one are you arguing here different both the defendant the state would say it's not properly before a speech you sure supervisory authority and as we said we'll talk to the state about that but you're saying that it is legitimately here and we don't need to of case where there is potential were evidence appears to be such that the court and the state says that should not be admitted into evidence why is that not the kind of evidence that's not the kind of i document that  i work closer essential to preserve a higher value because one of the things in civil cases in criminal cases and the first amendment and the common law presumptions have been equated in some circumstances and we think it's necessary to draw the distinctions out look at all the case and see how this should all operate which will provide guidance to the courts below this is going to be the first publicized case this isn't going to be the first this isn't the first case where information is workpieces really relevant to the public and the litigants might file common and they are distinct and the standards that govern them are distinct and although they serve a similar purposes ensuring open justice but they operate differently and this is an unusual so for example the right after the first amendment the us supreme court has announced a specific test for determining when the first amendment presumption of access applies to particular court proceedings force across the country have extended this test and applied it records as well and also to civil cases even though the u s supreme court has not done so this court that that is and so the question in the first amendment is to what records or to what proceedings is the public's interest it is the case where the u s supreme court also talked about these least restrictive means that the trial court must address before closing proceedings and we think that the similar no surprise when the first amendment presumption attaches to court documents  court filings and once a defendant or a party chooses to files of them in court they're seeking judicial action and it is the judicial process that the first amendment or the common are protect or protecting and everything is going to continue there are going to be those records that satisfy the experience and logic test and so the first amendment and then we will move down the continuum and there will be those records like discovery turning then to the motions of them in an issue here we think that the motions in limiting are best tangentially related to the criminal prosecution there is no enduring tradition of access to motions of women and they didn't exist at that at the they're not trial like these particular motions women aren't don't go to credible evidence they don't function like that they they are discovery that will not be admitted at trial i do want to clarify that defendant stated that the state starting point about some of this is you know the defendant put it into play because he wanted a ruling from the court he wanted to make sure that the trial was going to be efficient and that there would be side bars and there would be  said there was a right but whether there was a presumption in favor says whether everything was equal i mean we would say that you still under the common law i need to look at whether some other means are available to maintain the card for further proceedings and whether defendant has over that's and that is that's stets it is significant for the public to have access back to that information to be able to scrutinise our court system in the history system and and police conduct and understand the process and have faith that that's not what's occurring typically in motions in limine a and it's not what's occurring here no one is questioning that there was any any form of police misconduct in the information that was gather or that the information was the fruit of a poisonous tree or something of that nature otherwise there would have and a motion to suppress the information big agreed it was not admissible i was much i because that is the state's position my suggestion is it was it's also irrelevant i want to read for you a statement from the state after the motion to seal quote this is from the state's attorney quote during a big case like this there may be any number of things the state's aware of through an investigation that the press would never become privy that when you look on the continuing information that's involved in these motions it's something much closer much closer to the investigative process than it is to the can to to the trial process in fact the media is attorney reference the fact that the proximity argument and that in network were not that proximate to trump and i would suggest to you that that's exactly the case that the information of this in fac very close and it's a direct result of the investigative process which is not up in fact at the motions not been filed and not the motion filed under seal the in from the information would never read the  nature of the information and because the n t and because it was sealed and because the state has agreed that it's not admissible you have a you have a clear cut situation in this case and that may not always be the case  following from your question judge and it makes sufficient findings and proper determination i would submit to this court that it's appropriate to just simply affirm the ruling of the trial court and that there's a presumption doesn't apply to matters simple as that and thank you for your time thank you