Opinion ID: 774695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: March 12, 2001 Written Order

Text: 40 During the January 10 hearing, the Court offered Manno an opportunity to submit a form of order, but Manno refused. Instead, the Government proposed an order, which the Court signed and entered on March 12, 2001. 3 It stated that the matter came before the Court sua sponte, and was based on the record made during the proceeding in this matter on December 5, 2000, and January 10, 2001. The order proceeded to find, in relevant part, that: 1) Manno had discussed the merits of an anticipated motion in the case concerning electronic or computer surveillance techniques; 2) without a court order, Manno would likely make such statements to the press in the future, and those statements would be received as authoritative given his previous representation of Scarfo; 3) a local Criminal Rule prohibits a lawyer representing a party in a criminal matter from making an extra-judicial statement if the lawyer knows or should reasonably know that it will have a substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice to an adjudicative proceeding; 4) there is a substantial likelihood of future statements, and future statements to the press regarding legal issues prior to adjudication will materially prejudice the Court's ability to fairly and efficiently determine the anticipated pre-trial motion and any legal issues not yet presented to and adjudicated by the Court; 5) other curative measures concerning empaneling an impartial jury would likely be ineffective in ensuring that such statements would not risk harm to the judicial process; 6) this order is the least restrictive means available to prevent the threatened danger; and 7) the order lasts no longer than necessary to prevent the threatened danger, and is narrowly drawn to prohibit only those statements having a meaningful likelihood of materially impairing the Court's ability to fairly and efficiently determine the anticipated pre-trial motion and any legal issues not yet presented to and adjudicated by the Court, and to conduct a fair trial. The Court ordered that: 41 [N]o lawyer representing or who has represented a party in this criminal matter could make any extra-judicial statement to the press regarding legal issues which may be raised concerning electronic or computer surveillance techniques, which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication, which he knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice to the determination of the anticipated or filed pre-trial motion, or the conducting of a fair trial in the case. 42 The order was to remain in effect until any such motion raising these legal issues is adjudicated by the court.