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 4 · column 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
I read with an abiding interest your story of July 21, 1983, concerning your newspaper’s efforts to reverse Judge Home’s order sealing from public view certain documents and testimony in the case of the* Commonwealth v. Diane Kidwell.
Your headline that “Secrecy Breeds Suspicion” is misleading and has the potential to infect and prejudice the calm and decent attitude of the good citizens of Rappahannock County from which the next jury will be drawn in October. I am confident that neither you nor your distinguished counsel intended to prejudice the due process rights of a woman on trial for her life.
I am not at liberty to discuss the matters which occurred before Judge Home nor am I free to comment about the present litigation before the Supreme Court of Virginia because I represent Diane Kidwell in both of those matters. However, perhaps it would be helpful, in the interest of fair play and an informed public, to briefly discuss why the law protects certain matters from disclosure and that secrecy in a judicial proceeding does not breed suspicion. Your readers should know that the law creates certain privileged relationships and circumstances to protect the communications of those relationships because of a greater Constitutional or public interest at stake.
For example, in the case of your newspaper, as well as others, the law and the courts prevent the disclosure of your confidential sources which you utilize to discover and write stories of public interest. The courts have found your First Amendment rights to obtain
96.8%