Court Opinion

ID: 9625704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:48:36.883743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:13.914080
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
dissenting:
When a defendant asks that a suppression hearing be held in camera, I would have it the rule rather than the exception that his request be granted. However, we do not reach that proposition here. Perhaps I may be privileged on another day to expound my minority views in this respect.
A side observation should be made initially. In reading the trialogue between counsel and the court at the hearing preceding the court’s ruling, one is deeply and favorably impressed with the high and conscientious efforts of each to *194obtain a solid and just result under the law. There is no hint of deviousness by counsel here. It is apparent that the district attorney is not attempting to overplay his case, but merely wants a correct result. And the judge — one of high competence — has given the matter deep and intelligent consideration.
This is one of those cases in which a substantial segment of the public awaits each item of news with bated breath — the murder-rape of a beautiful 21-year-old University of Colorado coed, whose body was found not too far distant from the Boulder campus. Here are some of the headlines from the newspapers in Denver and in Boulder County:
“DENVER MAN IS CHARGED IN RAPE-SLAYING OF CU COED”
“SUSPECT IN RAPE CASE CHARGED WITH MURDER”
“SUSPECT CHARGED IN COED RAPE KILL”
“HEARING ORDERED FOR TUESDAY IN COED’S SLAYING”
“SLAY CASE PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE IN SECRECY”
“BOULDER D.A. EYES DEATH PENALTY IN COED’S SLAY CASE”
“CLOSED HEARING SOUGHT FOR STAPLETONDEFENDER TO GO TO HIGH COURT”
An an illustration of how explosive the trial judge considered the publicity potential of this case — in the in camera hearing referred to in the headline quoted above he ordered that the persons involved in the prosecution and defense make no extrajudicial statements. The court also ordered that affidavits in support of search warrants and the returns and inventories thereon be sequestered.
The deputy public defenders who are representing the defendant had asked that the earlier hearing be in camera. A newspaper ran a long editorial criticizing the “secrecy order.” Here are some excerpts from that editorial:
“The public defenders are employed and paid by the people.
* H? ❖
“The judge muzzled the district attorney, the defense attorneys and police from discussing the case.
*195* * *
“But the popular notion that citizens exposed to pre-trial publicity about a case cannot be impartial jurors flies in the face of reason and of trust in the democratic concept.
* * *
“The People have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. Secrecy invites temptation to make behind-the-scenes deals, to remove damaging evidence from files, to ‘take care of cronies, to cover up official inefficiency or corruption, to maltreat prisoners, to coerce confessions, and so on.
* * *
“The justice system belongs to the people and is the people’s creature. It is not the exclusive preserve of the legal profession.
* * *
“The Constitution recognizes no preference regarding the rights of fair trial and freedom of information. The notion that one subverts the other is a myth.”
There is less danger of pre-trial prejudice by publicity if the court denies the motion to suppress. However, a ruling granting a motion to suppress is futile if the to-be-suppressed evidence has been the subject of a public suppression hearing. The cat will be out of the bag.
The court has predicated its ruling upon its opinion that during the suppression hearing it will be able to detect in advance any evidence that might be improper and highly prejudicial to the defendant and take prophylactic action. This may be true with respect to the contents of a written confession. However, when inquiry turns to whether exhibits seized in the search should be suppressed, I can easily visualize that some highly prejudicial items or testimony may come into evidence, however alert and attentive the trial judge may be. Irrespective of the fact that the court may suppress a matter, by that time the media has it and, satisfying the desires of the reading and listening public, will disseminate it.
The standard and ethics of the media are far, far higher than they were 23 years ago when Walker v. People, 169 *196Colo. 467, 458 P.2d 238 (1969) was tried. But the basic desire of the media to satisfy its readers and listeners has not changed. As in Walker we have a young lady attending the University of Colorado raped and murdered. As in Walker interest is high. Even assuming that the chance of a slip-up in the suppression hearing is remote, the right of a defendant to be free of prejudicial publicity as to a suppressed item hangs on too thin a thread to have his request for a private suppression hearing denied.
We talk of preventive medicine. Here is a case in which we should practice preventive justice and lessen the possibility that, if this defendant is eventually convicted, reversible error will have been committed at this early stage. I would hold it an abuse of discretion in this particular case to deny the motion for an in camera hearing on the motion to suppress.