Court Documents

[n24nsx]

Thank you for availing yourselves to my questions!

I have spent the last five years following a high-publicity murder case. Because it was local for me, I attended the trial and took numerous steno pads worth of notes with the intention of posting them on an Internet message board. There was (and still is) enormous public interest in the case. But the trial was not aired on TV and, for the most part, not even reported on by the media in any satisfactory or reliable way. In fact, it was appalling to me the way this case was presented to the public. There was blatant prosecutor bias and misinformation galore. I can't tell you how infuriating it is to sit in the courtroom and come home and listen to a whole different account as to what went on- especially by people who weren't even there! Anyway, because of this misrepresentation, the so-called jury of public opinion has (erroneously, imo) found the suspect guilty. (I know this because I've done both formal and informal surveys on it and have been doing battle with people about it on three message boards.) The case has ended (except for the appeals process, of course) and I am angry at its outcome. I feel the public needs to know the facts! Therefore, after much contemplation and persuasion from friends, I've decided to write a book about it. Which brings me to my question to you . . .

I have gained the trust and cooperation of the defendants and several key witnesses who have agreed to contribute to the writing of the book. I have also (legally-they were given to me) acquired thirty boxes of discovery on the case. My question to you is, of the discovery materials, what am I legally allowed to include in my book? Each xeroxed page has "confidential" slapped across the front and has "legal discovery...not for public dissemination" written on the bottom. In my research on publishing law I have learned that anything unsealed is okay, but anything sealed by the court is off limits. Is that true or is everything fair game once the trial has concluded? While it is my desire to work within the limits of the law, I am reminded of all the years of tabloid exposure to "insider" information and "never-before-seen photos," etc., on court cases. The value of having this potentially explosive, bombshell material at my fingertips is wonderful, but scary. Can I use it? Any advice you can share with me is greatly appreciated!

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Thank you for availing yourselves to my questions!

I have spent the last five years following a high-publicity murder case. Because it was local for me, I attended the trial and took numerous steno pads worth of notes with the intention of posting them on an Internet message board. There was (and still is) enormous public interest in the case. But the trial was not aired on TV and, for the most part, not even reported on by the media in any satisfactory or reliable way. In fact, it was appalling to me the way this case was presented to the public. There was blatant prosecutor bias and misinformation galore. I can't tell you how infuriating it is to sit in the courtroom and come home and listen to a whole different account as to what went on- especially by people who weren't even there! Anyway, because of this misrepresentation, the so-called jury of public opinion has (erroneously, imo) found the suspect guilty. (I know this because I've done both formal and informal surveys on it and have been doing battle with people about it on three message boards.) The case has ended (except for the appeals process, of course) and I am angry at its outcome. I feel the public needs to know the facts! Therefore, after much contemplation and persuasion from friends, I've decided to write a book about it. Which brings me to my question to you . . .

I have gained the trust and cooperation of the defendants and several key witnesses who have agreed to contribute to the writing of the book. I have also (legally-they were given to me) acquired thirty boxes of discovery on the case. My question to you is, of the discovery materials, what am I legally allowed to include in my book? Each xeroxed page has "confidential" slapped across the front and has "legal discovery...not for public dissemination" written on the bottom. In my research on publishing law I have learned that anything unsealed is okay, but anything sealed by the court is off limits. Is that true or is everything fair game once the trial has concluded? While it is my desire to work within the limits of the law, I am reminded of all the years of tabloid exposure to "insider" information and "never-before-seen photos," etc., on court cases. The value of having this potentially explosive, bombshell material at my fingertips is wonderful, but scary. Can I use it? Any advice you can share with me is greatly appreciated!

Sounds fascinating. I'm not sure how you obtained copies of the evidence but just because you have legally acquired ownership of copies of some originals doesn't mean you acquired a license to publish them. For example, you might have a right to own a baseball card but it doesn't mean you have the right to reproduce it. For example, if a copy of a copyrighted book was submitted for evidence, you can report on the substance of the testimony but it doesn't give you a right to republish the book.

Regarding the insider trading cases, there are reports about the evidence but not necessarily the evidence itself. Perhaps a reporter took pictures and would have a right to publish those pictures. The "never before seen photos" may include both copyrighted materials where a license is obtained or the actual purchase of the original photo itself where the owner has the rights to do whatever he/she wants.

Does any of this make sense? This is the way I understand copyright law as applied to court cases. In addition, the "fair use" exception might apply although be very wary and careful about items that unquestionably are protected by copyright, e.g. the book example above. This sounds like a fascinating book and I'd enjoy hearing more about details if you can provide some.

 

[n24nsx]

Sounds fascinating. I'm not sure how you obtained copies of the evidence but just because you have legally acquired ownership of copies of some originals doesn't mean you acquired a license to publish them. For example, you might have a right to own a baseball card but it doesn't mean you have the right to reproduce it. For example, if a copy of a copyrighted book was submitted for evidence, you can report on the substance of the testimony but it doesn't give you a right to republish the book.

Regarding the insider trading cases, there are reports about the evidence but not necessarily the evidence itself. Perhaps a reporter took pictures and would have a right to publish those pictures. The "never before seen photos" may include both copyrighted materials where a license is obtained or the actual purchase of the original photo itself where the owner has the rights to do whatever he/she wants.

Does any of this make sense? This is the way I understand copyright law as applied to court cases. In addition, the "fair use" exception might apply although be very wary and careful about items that unquestionably are protected by copyright, e.g. the book example above. This sounds like a fascinating book and I'd enjoy hearing more about details if you can provide some.

Thanks for responding. Yes, what you said makes sense to me. I'm wondering who "owns" prosecutorial evidence, such as lab reports, witness statements and police records. Technically, the police and DA's office works for the public and a court case is the "State" vs. so-and-so, so technically wouldn't that evidence be the public's? I plan on seeking the advice of a publishing attorney one of these days, but I wanted to throw it out there to you guys first so I don't go in looking like a total idiot!

It WILL be a fascinating book, I assure you! I'll tell you more about it another time....gotta run.