Groups resist teens’ motion to close trial to public

FAIRFIELD — In the trial for a murder case that has shaken the community, legal teams for two teens accused of killing Spanish Teacher Nohema Graber have asked the court to bar the public and news media from the courtroom during jurisdictional decision trials, a proposal that’s met with heavy criticism.

The teens’ legal teams have sought to have them tried as juveniles instead of adults, and argue that trials to determine whether the juvenile system has jurisdiction should not be open to the public.

“Testimony pertaining to confidential information is expected at the hearing and would hinder Defendant’s ability to secure an impartial jury should the information be shared with the public prior to resolution of the case,” said a file to the court in late February, co-signed by Chief Local Public Defender Allen L. Cook III and Assistant State Public Defender Nicole Jensen. “Hearings regarding waiver of jurisdiction over a juvenile for prosecution as an adult are not open to the public. Those hearings analyze the same considerations that the Court addresses at hearings regarding whether transfer of jurisdiction to juvenile court is appropriate. The proceedings are nearly synonymous.”

The prosecution has filed to resist that motion, disputing the defense’s interpretation of state law.

“Defendant improperly cites to Iowa Code section 232.39 when arguing to close these proceedings, as this is presently a district court action and the Defendant is at this time, legally considered an adult,” Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding said in a motion to resist. “Violations which constitute a forcible felony are excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and shall be prosecuted as otherwise provided by law unless the district court transfers jurisdiction … Defendant’s citations to and reliance on statutes governing juvenile proceedings are irrelevant at this stage of the case.“

Moulding also argued that keeping the trial open was in the best interest of the general public.

“The Court is certainly not obligated to permit expanded media coverage … closing the reverse waiver hearing to the public is not appropriate, however,” he said. “Criminal proceedings in the United States are conducted in the open, which provides the public with faith and confidence in the fair outcome of the case. This is a fundamental cornerstone of our system of justice.”

The Iowa Freedom of Information Council has also weighed in on the matter, issuing its own resistance to the closure motion Monday morning. At time of writing, the resistance had only been filed in one of the teen’s cases — that of Jeremy Everett Goodale — but could be applied to the identical motion from Willard Noble Chaiden Miller, who is also accused.

“Goodale’s closure request should be rejected as unsupported by the law and unsound as a matter of history, tradition, and public policy,” the group said in a brief filed with the court. “The Council respectfully requests that the Court uphold the rights of the public and press to attend criminal court proceedings by denying the closure motion of the Defendant and by moving forward with criminal court proceedings open to and accessible by the public and the press.”

The brief went on to say that public access to the trials was key to the court’s legitimacy and fairness.

“History and law demonstrate that Iowa’s courts and Iowa trials are open to the public and the press,” it said. “This serves more than the interests of the press … The equal administration of justice hardly can occur if some court proceedings are in public but for others they are held behind closed doors.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com