Public information indictments thrown out

from Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas:

A state district judge threw out the indictment against Texas State Jail Standards Commission Executive Director Adan Munoz, saying wording in the criminal charge for allegedly releasing confidential information was “too vague.” It is unclear what action, if any, local prosecutors might take in moving forward for a possible new indictment or public apology. Munoz had been accused of improperly releasing information to two Corpus Christi reporters in response to a Texas Public Information Act request.

Read more here.

Virginia considers rule to protect juror info

The Virginia Supreme Court will receive public comments until Sept. 1 on a proposed rule that would seal juror information in all criminal trials, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported. The Virginia Coalition for Open Government says this is "potentially unconstitutional."

The Virginia Supreme Court has proposed a rule to tighten access to juror information in all criminal trials, expanding on a 2008 state law that gives courts the authority to keep juror lists secret where there is "good cause."

The proposed rule would shield jurors' identities, giving them numbers by which they would be referred to in court. It would allow judges to further restrict disclosure of personal juror information collected by the clerk's office in some cases. Virginia Beach courts have already launched a similarly restrictive policy, closing access to juror information in all cases, according to The Virginian-Pilot.

The Virginia Coalition for Open Government has come out against the proposed statewide rule.

More here.

Bill to allow background checks on Ark. officials voted down

The Arkansas House voted down a bill that would have resulted in public criminal history checks on elected officials and candidates for public office, Arkansas Business reported. The information is still public but remains difficult to obtain and compile.

House lawmakers rejected Friday a bill by Rep. Dan Greenberg that would have made the criminal records of elected officials and candidates for public office more accessible to the public.

The bill, which advanced from the Judiciary Committee after three hearings, was voted down 33-56, with 11 members not voting. The bill would have allowed the release of an official's guilty and no-contest pleas, as well as any pending felony or misdemeanor charges filed in the past three years. The bill, which was opposed by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, did not include traffic violations.

"There's nothing that would be revealed by this bill the public cannot access already," Greenberg, R-Little Rock, said. "The practical problem, as you may know, is for a person to collect this information at present, it would require someone to go to all 75 counties."

More here.

It's Rather Annoying This Took A State Supreme Court...

...to tell officials in Colorad that a criminal indictment is a public record, but there you go:

The Colorado Supreme Court struck a resounding blow for open records on Monday when it ordered a judge to release details of an indictment of an Aurora man suspected in the disappearance of his 6-year-old daughter.

It's a shame, however, that something that should have been an ordinary matter of public record had to go all the way to the state Supreme Court. Indictments routinely have been available for public inspection in Colorado as a matter of law and tradition.

Arapahoe District Attorney Carol Chambers was wrong to try to keep the details of the document sealed, and we're glad the Supreme Court made a logical decision in the case.

We're speaking, of course, of the Aarone Thompson case, and a ruling by Arapahoe County District Judge Mark Hannen to keep most of the details of the allegations against her father under seal. Prosecutors argued the indictment was filled with information too shocking for the public to see, and worried about the ability to hold a fair trial for Aaron Thompson, father of the missing girl.

The authors of the indictment created the problem when they filled it with what the Supreme Court called "exhaustive narratives" of the case, far exceeding the "essential facts" that must be included in a grand jury indictment.

But the Court made it clear that the decision to load the indictment with "excessive" detail didn't give the court the right to keep it secret.

The matter got to the state Supreme Court only because of the efforts by The Denver Post and The Associated Press, which took legal action to force the question to a higher authority.

More here.