SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
News Organizations Move to Overturn Gag Order in Blankenship Case
A group of news organizations -- the Charleston Gazette, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal -- and Friends of West Virginia Public Broadcasting -- have filed a motion to overturn Judge Irene Berger's gag order in the criminal case against former Massey CEO Don Blankenship.
The news organizations are being represented by Charleston attorney Sean McGinley.
Dec 02, 2014
A group of news organizations -- the Charleston Gazette, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal -- and Friends of West Virginia Public Broadcasting -- have filed a motion to overturn Judge Irene Berger's gag order in the criminal case against former Massey CEO Don Blankenship.
The news organizations are being represented by Charleston attorney Sean McGinley.
Judge Berger's gag order sealed all prior and future filings and prohibited actual and alleged victims, their relatives and others - as well as trial participants and counsel, from saying anything or releasing any documents "regarding the facts or substance of this case."
The news organizations argue that Berger's gag order is "overbroad" and infringes on the news organizations' First Amendment rights.
The news organizations argue that "there has been no showing that all speech about the facts or substance of the case," or that all court filings "pose a sufficient threat of harm to a fair trial interest that justify the gag and sealing order."
Even if Judge Berger were to find this case is one of those "relatively rare" cases in which there is sufficient proof of a prejudicial effect to a fair trial caused by news accounts, "before mandating secrecy regarding this case, the Court must consider alternatives, including even a change of venue, that would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial without infringing on the (news organizations') constitutional and common law rights of access."
The motion to overturn the gag order quotes a Sixth Circuit decision that reversed a similarly restrictive order. "A more restrictive ban upon freedom of expression in the trial context would be difficult if not impossible to find," the Sixth Circuit ruled in CBS Inc. v Young (1975).
Berger's gag and sealing order was entered quickly, within 24 hours of the issuance of the indictment.
The news organizations argue that "the gag order applies like a blanket covering all statements and documents that may have anything to do with the facts or substance of the case, and is not tailored to apply only to statements or documents specifically identified as being sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
"Likewise, the sealing order applies like a blanket shielding all filings regardless of their content, and regardless of whether the public access to a particular document, pleading or order is sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
The news organizations argue that "in its application, the gag and sealing order is vague and applies to unspecified individuals - by designating all 'family members of victims' or 'alleged victims,' there is no way of knowing precisely to whom it applies (or why)."
"For example, does a family member include a first or second cousin?" the motion asks. "And the order does not identify who qualifies as an 'alleged victim' - it could be read to include both the victims of the Upper Big Branch tragedy who suffered death or physical injuries as well as alleged victims of the conduct related to the Securities and Exchange Commission charges, which may include all owners of Massey common stock."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Corporate Crime Reporter
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
A group of news organizations -- the Charleston Gazette, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal -- and Friends of West Virginia Public Broadcasting -- have filed a motion to overturn Judge Irene Berger's gag order in the criminal case against former Massey CEO Don Blankenship.
The news organizations are being represented by Charleston attorney Sean McGinley.
Judge Berger's gag order sealed all prior and future filings and prohibited actual and alleged victims, their relatives and others - as well as trial participants and counsel, from saying anything or releasing any documents "regarding the facts or substance of this case."
The news organizations argue that Berger's gag order is "overbroad" and infringes on the news organizations' First Amendment rights.
The news organizations argue that "there has been no showing that all speech about the facts or substance of the case," or that all court filings "pose a sufficient threat of harm to a fair trial interest that justify the gag and sealing order."
Even if Judge Berger were to find this case is one of those "relatively rare" cases in which there is sufficient proof of a prejudicial effect to a fair trial caused by news accounts, "before mandating secrecy regarding this case, the Court must consider alternatives, including even a change of venue, that would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial without infringing on the (news organizations') constitutional and common law rights of access."
The motion to overturn the gag order quotes a Sixth Circuit decision that reversed a similarly restrictive order. "A more restrictive ban upon freedom of expression in the trial context would be difficult if not impossible to find," the Sixth Circuit ruled in CBS Inc. v Young (1975).
Berger's gag and sealing order was entered quickly, within 24 hours of the issuance of the indictment.
The news organizations argue that "the gag order applies like a blanket covering all statements and documents that may have anything to do with the facts or substance of the case, and is not tailored to apply only to statements or documents specifically identified as being sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
"Likewise, the sealing order applies like a blanket shielding all filings regardless of their content, and regardless of whether the public access to a particular document, pleading or order is sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
The news organizations argue that "in its application, the gag and sealing order is vague and applies to unspecified individuals - by designating all 'family members of victims' or 'alleged victims,' there is no way of knowing precisely to whom it applies (or why)."
"For example, does a family member include a first or second cousin?" the motion asks. "And the order does not identify who qualifies as an 'alleged victim' - it could be read to include both the victims of the Upper Big Branch tragedy who suffered death or physical injuries as well as alleged victims of the conduct related to the Securities and Exchange Commission charges, which may include all owners of Massey common stock."
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
A group of news organizations -- the Charleston Gazette, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal -- and Friends of West Virginia Public Broadcasting -- have filed a motion to overturn Judge Irene Berger's gag order in the criminal case against former Massey CEO Don Blankenship.
The news organizations are being represented by Charleston attorney Sean McGinley.
Judge Berger's gag order sealed all prior and future filings and prohibited actual and alleged victims, their relatives and others - as well as trial participants and counsel, from saying anything or releasing any documents "regarding the facts or substance of this case."
The news organizations argue that Berger's gag order is "overbroad" and infringes on the news organizations' First Amendment rights.
The news organizations argue that "there has been no showing that all speech about the facts or substance of the case," or that all court filings "pose a sufficient threat of harm to a fair trial interest that justify the gag and sealing order."
Even if Judge Berger were to find this case is one of those "relatively rare" cases in which there is sufficient proof of a prejudicial effect to a fair trial caused by news accounts, "before mandating secrecy regarding this case, the Court must consider alternatives, including even a change of venue, that would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial without infringing on the (news organizations') constitutional and common law rights of access."
The motion to overturn the gag order quotes a Sixth Circuit decision that reversed a similarly restrictive order. "A more restrictive ban upon freedom of expression in the trial context would be difficult if not impossible to find," the Sixth Circuit ruled in CBS Inc. v Young (1975).
Berger's gag and sealing order was entered quickly, within 24 hours of the issuance of the indictment.
The news organizations argue that "the gag order applies like a blanket covering all statements and documents that may have anything to do with the facts or substance of the case, and is not tailored to apply only to statements or documents specifically identified as being sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
"Likewise, the sealing order applies like a blanket shielding all filings regardless of their content, and regardless of whether the public access to a particular document, pleading or order is sufficiently prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial."
The news organizations argue that "in its application, the gag and sealing order is vague and applies to unspecified individuals - by designating all 'family members of victims' or 'alleged victims,' there is no way of knowing precisely to whom it applies (or why)."
"For example, does a family member include a first or second cousin?" the motion asks. "And the order does not identify who qualifies as an 'alleged victim' - it could be read to include both the victims of the Upper Big Branch tragedy who suffered death or physical injuries as well as alleged victims of the conduct related to the Securities and Exchange Commission charges, which may include all owners of Massey common stock."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.