Lawyers for media organizations covering the trial of Westport’s Martha Stewart urged a federal judge today to reverse her order barring the media from watching jury selection.
In court papers, media lawyers said the high-profile nature of the case is not enough to justify restricting the public’s right to monitor what happens in court.
“Because this case is newsworthy, it is all the more important to protect the right of access in order to reassure the public that the law is being applied evenhandedly, and that justice is being done,” the papers said.
The judge, Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum of Manhattan federal court, was to hear oral arguments on the matter later today.
Seventeen media organizations are opposing the judge’s order, including The Associated Press, all the major New York newspapers, all the major television networks and several other wire services.
Cedarbaum issued an order Thursday banning the press and public from juror interviews, which are to begin Tuesday – the first day in court for Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic.
The judge said the presence of reporters could have a “chilling effect” and keep potential jurors from being fully forthcoming about any biases they may have in the case.
“Without such candor on the part of prospective jurors, there is a substantial risk that defendants’ absolute right to a fair trial and an impartial jury will be impaired,” the judge wrote.
Juror interviews are held in open court in all but extremely rare cases – particularly mob and drug prosecutions, when there may be a risk of physical harm to a publicly identified juror.
Stewart is accused of lying to investigators about why she sold ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2001, just before it plunged on a negative report about the company’s cancer drug.
The government says Stewart was tipped that ImClone founder Sam Waksal was trying to sell his shares. Stewart claims she and her broker had a pre-existing arrangement to sell the stock when the price fell to $60.
Earlier this month, the judge ordered members of the media not to talk to potential jurors in the case.
But Cedarbaum said Thursday that ruling had already been violated when an anonymous juror posted a report on a gossip Web site listing some of the questions in the questionnaire.
Cedarbaum denied a request by reporters to have a “pool” of one or more reporters watch the juror interviews. Instead, she plans to make transcripts of the interviews available the following day, with juror names withheld.
But only providing a transcript restricts the public’s ability to understand what is happening, said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer in New York.
“There’s a big difference between a transcript and the reality of seeing people respond to questions,” he said.
The judge has also ordered the media not to disclose, photograph or sketch potential jurors in the case. Media lawyers contend that is an unconstitutional restriction, effectively creating an anonymous jury.
“There is no finding here – and no evidence of which we are aware – that any risk of juror tampering exists in this case that could justify keeping jurors’ names entirely secret,” the media lawyers wrote.
