Opinion ID: 6337965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Closed Proceeding

Text: The closed proceeding at issue took place on the morning of October 1, 2014, about one month into Jordan's trial (the Closed Proceeding). Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, and after an unrecorded sidebar with the prosecutor, Justice Solomon asked all spectators to leave for about five minutes, about something that has to be done in private. JA.18. Jordan and her counsel remained in the courtroom, but all of the spectators left, the courtroom door was closed, and an officer was posted outside the door. The court then explained that [the prosecutor] wants to make a record about something that he didn't want to put on the record in front of the audience or the press, about a very serious problem concerning Ms. Jordan. JA.19, 20. Defense counsel objected to the closure of the courtroom; the objection was overruled. The State proceeded to bring to the court's attention a website called The Inadmissible Truth, which had been posted on the internet the night before. The site included links to several articles, all of which accused the court of undermining the fairness of the trial by refusing to admit certain evidence. The State also gave the court a copy of an email that Jordan had sent to more than one 6 20-3317-cv Jordan v. Lamanna hundred email addresses, many of which appeared to be media contacts. The body of the email read: For more than four and a half years, I have awaited trial with one thought in mind, that I would finally be able to tell the whole story of the torment my son endured and how and why this horror happened. Sadly, I've learned that the justice system will not allow this story to be told. The truth seeking process that I believe the justice system to be is stymied on many fronts resulting in the suppression of evidence that anyone would expect to hear at a fair trial. The prosecutor in my case has repeatedly admonished the jury that they must not expect to hear why this happened. I posted this website in the hope that the truth will come out. --Gigi Jordan JA.48. The court marked both documents as exhibits. Justice Solomon noted that he had never had this happen before and asked the State what it was seeking. JA.24-25. The State asked the court to repeat its instruction to the jury about avoiding media coverage of the trial. Defense counsel did not object to this request. The State also asked for some assurance that nobody on the defense team was in violation of your Honor's ruling and the ethical standards. JA.25. Earlier in the Closed Proceeding, the prosecutor had said, I am not, in any way, suggesting that any of the defense attorneys have knowledge of [the website or the email] . . . . I'm not accusing anyone of anything. JA.21. 7 20-3317-cv Jordan v. Lamanna Defense counsel again objected to the closure of the courtroom. The defense insisted that the closed courtroom is not requested by us, is not necessary for us, is and remains unconstitutional and there is absolutely nothing in the record that [the State] just made that could conceivably justify the closure of the courtroom. JA.26. The prosecutor explained that, given the publicity of the trial, he wanted to avoid the feeding frenzy that would ensue from the defendant's desperate act of . . . trying to get into the public domain matters that this Court has ruled are inadmissible. JA.24. A lengthier exchange between the court and defense counsel followed, during which the court repeatedly asked where the website came from, defense counsel continued to object to the closure of the courtroom, and both counsel and the court agreed that for an attorney to disseminate the website would be unethical. Towards the end of the Closed Proceeding, defense counsel moved to unseal the minutes of the proceeding and the two marked exhibits. The court denied the motion, but invited defense counsel to make a written application to unseal them. The court also noted that there was no gag order on what transpired in the proceeding, i.e., those present were free to disseminate 8 20-3317-cv Jordan v. Lamanna information about it. After a few more unproductive exchanges about who was responsible for the website, during which the prosecutor asked [i]s [sic] the last ten minutes fruitful?, the court reopened the courtroom to the public. JA.38. After the jury returned, the court repeated its instruction that they avoid media coverage of the trial. The courtroom had been closed for about fifteen minutes. Later that afternoon, the court asked the prosecutor whether the minutes of the Closed Proceeding needed to remain sealed. The court explained, [M]aybe it was an erroneous ruling. Maybe this should be in the public domain, I don't know. I'm trying to think of the reason why it shouldn't. I can't think of a reason. JA.43. The court then unsealed the minutes and the two exhibits. Jordan's trial continued for five more weeks – the verdict was handed down on November 5, 2014.