No cameras allowed for pretrial hearings in Runnion murder case

By The Associated Press

09.17.02

Printer-friendly page

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A judge yesterday rejected news media arguments that cameras and audio recording equipment be allowed in court for pretrial hearings for the man accused of kidnapping and killing 5-year-old Samantha Runnion.

Orange County Superior Court Judge F.P. Briseno, however, did not rule on whether cameras would be allowed in court if Alejandro Avila stands trial on the charges.

"I'm inclined to deny the use of any cameras for any pre-preliminary hearings and the preliminary hearing," Briseno said during a hearing. A preliminary hearing, which was scheduled for Avila for Oct. 11, is a procedure that determines whether there is enough evidence to put a defendant on trial.

District Attorney Anthony Rackauckas told the judge that the prosecution had no objections to cameras in court but that the victims in the case did.

Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, watched Avila enter court. She cried and spent most of the hearing staring at him.

Rackauckas said outside court that he had spoken with Runnion and her husband and they were "very much against" having cameras in the courtroom.

"I promised her I would relay that to the judge," he said.

The judge ruled last week against having cameras in court during pretrial hearings but allowed news media attorneys to argue against the order yesterday.

Avila, 27, has pleaded not guilty to kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing Samantha. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

Samantha was abducted in Stanton on July 15 as she played with a friend. Her nude body was found the next day along a highway between Orange County and the Riverside County community of Lake Elsinore. She was sexually assaulted and asphyxiated.

Briseno said he was concerned about the possibility of tainting the jury pool by camera coverage.

"I want to minimize the risk," he said.

The judge disagreed with news media arguments that a great deal of the county is aware of the case.

"There is a great deal of the community that does not get a newspaper, and if they do get a newspaper, they don't read it thoroughly," he said.

Avila's public defender, Denise Gragg, argued for the camera exclusion, saying both her office and Avila had received death threats and cameras in court would subject them to more threats.

"Cameras can only serve to fan passions ... and turn this proceeding from a formal legal proceeding into the equivalent of 'The Jerry Springer Show,' " she said.

Attorney Jean-Paul Jassy, arguing on behalf of the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register, dismissed that comment.

"Jerry Springer invites discord. ... This court, of course, will not be doing this," he said.

Jassy argued that Avila's photograph has already been widely disseminated and that still cameras are unobtrusive and add to a defendant's right to a fair trial.

"It gives the public the opportunity to see what this court does," he said.

Photographs "memorialize important public events," Jassy said.

Attorneys also argued on behalf of the Radio and Television News Association and CNN.

Cameras were banned from the entire courthouse yesterday by order of the presiding judge of the Superior Court.

Related

News media win bid to televise California murder trial
But judge in Danielle van Dam case extends gag order, denies request to unseal search-warrant documents.  04.19.02

Kansas high court: Jury selection in serial murder trial should be open
Justices overturn lower court ruling barring public, news media from proceedings; meanwhile, ban on cameras in courtroom remains intact.  09.13.02

N.H. justices to consider allowing cameras in criminal trials
State high court agrees to take up issue even though case that sparked news media's appeal is over.  06.04.02