Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
Continued from Page 1
In arguing for an open record, Luke relied primarily on a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Richmond Newspapers v. Commonwealth, which outlines procedures which must be followed before a hearing can be closed.
Horne maintained that the Supreme Court ruling involved only hearings on the suppression of evidence, something that’s not an issue in the Kidwell case.
“The language in Richmond Newspapers Commonwealth is broad enough to cover all pre-trial hearings. . . incriminal cases,” Luke countered, arguing that the justices, in their ruling, used the terms “suppression hearing” and “pretrial hearing” interchangeably. In addition, he said, a motion to limit evidence is tantamount to a motion for supression of evidence.
Luke maintained tha procedures outlined by the Supreme Court hadn’t been followed in that the defense had failed to file a written motion for closure 24 hours in advance of the hearing and the Court had not given interested parties notice and an opportunity to argue against closure.
“If the motion itself to close may prejudice the defendant or prejudice other parties, how is the court to give notice?” Home asked, adding that such a motion may involve a “collateral matter.”
“I’m arguing in the dark,” said Luke, “I’m not sure what is a collateral matter.”
“I’m trying to give you enough light so you can argue intelligently,” the judge replied. He pointed out that the right to limit access to the grand jury’s report rest entirely with the court. Preserving the confidentiality of
92.9%