Editor,

In reference to your editorial of Dec. 5, 2015, about my not allowing photographs of the four murder suspects in the courtroom, please let me explain my reasoning.

I am sensitive to both the public’s right of access and the right of the accused to a public trial. Like the reporter, Jessie Stensland, I have never had anyone complain about cameras in the courtroom, and I have always allowed news reporters free access.

I have even allowed news reporters to sit in the jury box to get clear photos of the accused.

In this case, one of the attorneys for a defendant – which was then followed by the attorneys for all of the defendants – expressed concern that until he/she received discovery, he was not sure that there was an issue of the identification of the accused.

At arraignment, all the judge has before her/him is the probable cause statement and the information charging the defendant. For all anyone knew, the investigation may still be quite active.

Discovery was expected to be provided within a few days, and the four murder suspects had other proceedings in court when they could be photographed by the news reporter.

If there is an identification issue and witnesses had a chance to see the photographs of the accused in the newspaper, it could compromise the trial, perhaps even require a new trial or at the extreme end, an acquittal.

That was my concern: To eliminate the possibility that the news photographs of the accused prior to discovery would compromise the trial, especially since there would be other occasions for the news reporter to photograph the defendants once that issue was cleared up. I requested any input from the news reporter, who replied that she had never been refused the opportunity to photograph a criminal defendant in any court.

Upon reflection and review of the bench-bar principles and considerations and your editorial, I have to agree with your editorial. The presumption starts that news reporters are allowed to photograph criminal defendants.

The restriction against this must be based on compelling circumstances, specifically identified, that are particular to this case. There were only concerns, no specifics, that the identification of the accused was genuinely in issue.

The defendants will be in court again, and I urge the news reporter to request in advance to photograph/videotape the proceedings so that the assigned judge will have adequate time to rule, having the facts on hand.

Island County Superior Court has always respected the right of the press, and, thus, the public’s right of access. Perhaps this new procedure will facilitate that in all instances.

Vickie Churchill

Island County Superior Court