Attorneys Argue Pretrial Issue

A Superior Court Judge in Cheshire has denied a motion by lawyers for Defendant Steven Hayes to close the courtroom for pretrial motions so that jurors will not be prejudiced by news coverage of the hearing.  Jurors have already been selected in this case, although they are not scheduled to hear any testimony until the trial starts in September.

Seems to me that the defense attorneys have a valid concern here.  Typically, jurors are instructed not to listen to or read anything about a trial that might appear in the media.  They are also instructed not to consider anything other than the evidence admitted at trial when reaching their verdict.  Jurors however, as far as I understand, are people.  Quite the temptation I would think.

On the other hand, there are constitutional issues at play compelling trials to be open to the public.  I am sure that the judge in this case gave due consideration to all the legal arguments for and against before deciding not to close the courtroom.  I do not second-guess his ruling.  However....

Here's a novel idea:  why not wait until September (when the trial is suppose to begin) to pick the freakin jury?  Then, lawyers for both sides can question potential jurors about what they may have already learned about the case from the media.  They can strike for cause those jurors who are prejudiced, and eliminate this whole question as a potential appellate issue.  Just a suggestion.

If you wish, read more about this case in the Hartford Courant.