Judge denies request to open criminal hearing to public

Aug. 12—A Muskogee County judge denied public access for a second day to a preliminary hearing for a man who faces six first-degree murder charges filed in connection with the deaths of his brother and five children.

District Judge Bret Smith rejected arguments made on behalf of the Muskogee Phoenix and the public that access to court proceedings is a First Amendment right guaranteed by U.S. Constitution. He said the interests of the children in a deprived-child matter, which Smith chose to hear concurrently with Jarron Dejaun Pridgeon's preliminary hearing, outweighed the public's right to attend the criminal hearing.

KatieBeth Gardner, a Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press lawyer representing the Phoenix, said she plans to file a writ with the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals seeking an order to open the hearing. Gardner's representation of the Phoenix, made possible by RCFP's Local Legal Initiative, facilitated the release the audio of a 911 call made after the mass shooting and police bodycam video, open records that prosecutors attempted to seal.

"Absolutely, we can get started on it this afternoon," Gardner said about the appeal of Smith's decision. "I can't promise that's going to get us into the courtroom by the end of the week, but absolutely we would ask for transcripts to be prepared of the hearing at their expense and made available to the public."

Gardner said Smith, who prohibited access to journalists while she argued on their behalf, expressed the need to protect the children's interest, which he prioritized over public access to Pridgeon's preliminary hearing. In a motion to intervene filed Monday after journalists were removed from Smith's courtroom, Gardner cited U.S. Supreme Court and Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals cases that recognized the presumptive openness of criminal proceedings and the values served by openness."

"This presumptive right of public access is rooted in the 'centuries-old history of open trials' and implicit in the First Amendment's 'core purpose' of assuring freedom of public discussion," Gardner argues in her motion. "That right can be overcome only by 'an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'"

Gardner said the absence of any written order providing notice of the two hearings being conducted simultaneously and restricting public access subverts First Amendment principles that support public policies for the need of a free press. She said closing the preliminary hearing can be done only if the court deems it "essential to preserve higher values, narrowly tailored to serve those interests," and the decision is "supported by specific, on-the-record factual findings."

Gardner hopes to secure the release of a transcript "of the portion of that criminal proceeding that was improperly closed to the media and the public."