Read the "media intervenors" motion. I've seen it all before. In this case, it will come down to whether the Court believes that keeping things sealed is necessary to: 1) allow further investigation to proceed as to the defendant or others (or possibly other crimes), and/or 2) protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The media's arguments regarding their tangential "constitutional rights" will not be the deciding factor. If the Court decides that unsealing isn't harmful to investigations or fair trial, sure....the "right to know" then starts to mean something.
The media's arguments regarding their tangential "constitutional rights" will not be the deciding factor. If the Court decides that unsealing isn't harmful to investigations or fair trial, sure....the "right to know" then starts to mean something.
Last edited: