Court Opinion

ID: 9558048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:02:07.71108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:11.099548
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(concurring) — I concur fully with the analysis and result of the majority. One further comment is, I believe, important. As noted by the majority, the interests to be protected by the secrecy order were:
(1) the fair trial of defendant Marler;
(2) the ongoing criminal investigation of the murder of Wanda Touchstone; and
(3) the safety of witnesses.
A limited secrecy order, under the standards articulated by the majority might well be appropriate to protect interests (1) and (2). It would not be appropriate to protect interest (3). It is not the business of courts through pretrial secrecy orders to provide "protection" for witnesses or parties. To hold otherwise would put the courts in an impossible position: Fail to issue a secrecy order and if the witness or party is injured or killed it is the fault of the court.
The safety or life of a witness or a party to an action is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies. It is not properly done by courts through the use of secrecy orders. Once the argument to the contrary is accepted, any vitality in an open judicial system is destroyed.
If the unavoidable circumstances are indeed such that a witness or a party to an action must be protected, then this must be accomplished by appropriate police action and not by the closure of the court. If, on the other hand, the circumstances which brought about the alleged threat to safety or life were brought about by actions of the prosecution or the defense subsequent to the crime then notice should be given that such actions will not result in approval of a secrecy order by the court.
Utter, J., concurs with Dolliver, J.