Dear Judge Brady: I respectfully request permission to videotape and to take still pictures and to record this trial of State v. Robert Iacoviello Jr. Not only have I been a local editor for a statewide Ohio newspaper (The Call & Post) and a reporter for the Indianapolis Star (Attachment 1), the precise activity that I seek to engage in is authorized by SJC Rule 1.9, specifically sections (b) - (e) inclusive, and (g), "A judge should not make an exclusive arrangement with any person or organization for news media coverage of proceedings in the courtroom."I was told that I needed a set of specific press credentials but I do not see any such requirement in the SJC rule and there is most definitely no such limitation in New Hampnshire (see "NH Courts bids to make Courts current with technology," Attachment 2).
Further, if there is no major media present when I am present I respectfully submit that I be entitled to run full video as I deem necessary. Anyone who arrives first should be entitled to do so, by the plain language of the rules. As the ACLU and I have been recognized as the top two leading Constitutional Law blogs by the Masters in Criminal Justice website (I am #1), I will approach them should the Court continue to deny me the access that I believe is warranted by Rule 1.9. I will adhere to the guidelines anticipated by 1.9 and offer not to use the laptop computer because of the keystroke noise and I will definitely set my cameras to silent mode in the fashion of all other journalists who take video and still images in this courtroom.
I should not have to visit this matter upon the ACLU however, because I have been bringing cameras into courtrooms since the mid 1990's when I was busy successfully defending the First Amendment against lying State's witness, watch the new YouTube videos from my old VHS tapes right here.
You newbies might not know this, but I am Boston Bob (see the 3 December 2008 Harvard Law School/Citizen Media Law Project post) and the last time there was a First Amendment dust-up in this courthouse the matter was not fully resolved because the SJC Full Panel appeal was never heard because Kevin Barron settled his case with Derrick Gillenwater.
ReplyDeleteBut not before the folks at Proskauer, Rose filed some scathing Superior Court and SJC Memoranda in SJ-165-2009 after I took Mr. Gillenwater on down to the ACLU offices, yes Sir, yes Ma'am that is exactly how it went down.
Do your Googling, let's just say there are a couple of different blogs going on there and a wealth of interesting information, news you can use.
-The Editor.
Read the no-trajectory post from my personal blog to see what some people are questioning: Could a drunken LE have shot his own man?
ReplyDeleteIs this a "friendly fire" situation.
Recall Ned Beatty and Carol Burnett in his post Szysznyk days.....
***********
#
So what we are thinking is the flat tire thing could be where the bullet that Bobby shot went. Which leaves the other officers that were there fired their guns and accidentally killed Talbot. Now they figure they will blame Bobby. This is why the girlfriend keeps saying she was under the bleachers and knows nothing. They are keeping her out of it. This trial should have really been on Nancy Grace Show or Geraldo Rivera.
By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:39 PM
#
The thought has certainly crossed my mind.....
I look forward to the ballistics testimony, whichever parts of it that the State plans to introduce.
-c
By Blogger Christopher King, at 3:00 PM
#
I am a lifetime Revere resident, and I just want to say thank you for all of the insight on this situation.
It would absolutely make sense if perhaps a stray bullet from another intoxicated off-duty gun weilding police officer struck Daniel in the head instead of the Iacovello kid who is on trial.
It saddens me that we will most likely NEVER know the whole truth of the matter. From day one of hearing this story, something seemed to be off, and once the truth comes out about what went down that night, we will all have the reaction of, "Ahh, now it makes sense!"
Thank you for the informative posts and opinions! I love it!
By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:23 PM
Oh, what was the salient part of the Harvard piece?
ReplyDeleteThis:
"It looks like the court failed to brush up on some basics of defamation and First Amendment law before issuing its order.
There are further tantalizing questions, however. Who is Boston Bob and why is he so interested in Mr. Gillenwater's case? Could it be that Mr. Gillenwater created the Boston Bob persona in order to circumvent the court's (likely) unconstitutional order? To my mind, this is unlikely, if only because it would take such incredible audacity to defy the court's order. Perhaps we'll find out soon."
Now you have found out.
I'm just a reporter at heart, albeit one with an interesting legal background, much of it captured on video.
I was way ahead of the game in the 90's and I aim to stay that way today, thank you.
-The Editor.