,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Media attorneys are back this morning to try and get the #JussieSmollett file unsealed. Citing major public interest in the case contrasted with the secretive way things went down last week (and Foxx’s back-and-forth on which records were supposed to be sealed in the first place)
There is a new law allowing for immediate sealing in circumstances like Smollett’s, but it doesn’t REQUIRE that sealing. In Smollett’s case, defense requested it, prosecutors did not object and the judge didn’t push back.
Here’s the thing — the file itself is not gonna be that interesting. The case was so new that the file was super thin.
BUT — agencies (ie CPD) are using the sealing order as an excuse to not release other records under FOIA.
BUT — agencies (ie CPD) are using the sealing order as an excuse to not release other records under FOIA.
Yeah, good call, there’s a distinction. CPD released a ton of records, but there were missing pages etc, which they then said they couldn’t release due to the sealing order.
A major part of the media attorneys’ request deals with whether public agencies can deny FOIA requests because of the sealing order.
That order “cannot - and was not intended to - operate to sweepingly bar” those agencies from complying with FOIA requests, per the motion
That order “cannot - and was not intended to - operate to sweepingly bar” those agencies from complying with FOIA requests, per the motion
After a very short hearing, Judge Watkins said he wouldn’t rule on this until the end of May or thereabouts.
Asked attorneys to submit more briefs and said he would hear oral arguments next month.
Asked attorneys to submit more briefs and said he would hear oral arguments next month.
