A South Carolina judge says he will release some police documents and other evidence in connection with the Charleston church shooting that claimed the lives of nine African-American worshippers.
Judge J.C. Nicholson said he first wanted to sit down with attorneys for the victims and the news media to review some of the more graphic evidence ”“ including photographs of the crime scene ”“ before deciding specifically what will be released.
During a hearing in Charleston on Wednesday, Nicholson also indicated the 911 calls would be released but that there had been no decision whether the tapes themselves or just simply transcripts would be released.
[blockquote]The judge expressed concern earlier that the right to a fair trial for Dylann Roof, who faces nine counts of murder and other charges in state court, could also be jeopardized by pretrial publicity[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]William Nettles, the United States attorney for South Carolina, wrote in a friend of the court brief that Nicholson should keep the order in place.
Nettles wrote that releasing documents and recordings “would violate victims’ rights, compromise victims’ dignity and invade victims’ privacy. Disclosure may well jeopardize the rights to a fair trial held by both the defendant and the public.â€[/blockquote]
Well, is it normal in the US to release prosecution evidence to be seen by potential jurors prior to the defence having the right to challenge and test it in court, even where the evidence consists of visual and audio recordings? Would that not give the defence an opportunity to claim that the defendant’s right to a fair trial had been prejudiced? Do the rights of a prurient media over-ride the needs of justice and the rights of a defendant? Should trial by media precede lawful legal process and risk compromising the fairness with which a defendant is entitled to be treated, and risk challenge to any subsequent convictions on those grounds?
How odd.