The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned a district judge’s order that KARE 11 destroy court documents, calling the original decision unconstitutional.
Judge grants KARE 11 appeal alleging First Amendment violation
Attorneys said the news station’s First Amendment rights were violated by a judge’s order to destroy court documents.
The Minnesota Star Tribune
August 14, 2024 at 8:17PM
The court of appeals ruling, signed by Chief Judge Susan Segal, said the July 19 order by Ramsey County Judge Joy Bartscher that KARE 11 must limit or destroy documents publicly filed in a St. Paul double murder case was an unconstitutional use of prior restraint. Segal’s order bars the court from enforcing Bartscher’s order.
“We’re pleased with the judge’s ruling,” said Doug Wieder, KARE 11 president and general manager. “This was an important case for the First Amendment and I’m proud of our newsroom for taking up the fight.”
Judge Bartscher’s order would have barred access to a memo about Joseph Sandoval, the 34-year-old who pleaded guilty to killing 56-year-old Jon Wentz and 40-year-old Jason Murphy at a home in the 1100 block of Lawson Avenue E. Sandoval told arresting officers that he used fentanyl and heard voices in the TV warning that Murphy and Wentz would kill him. Sandoval was found competent to stand trial, but an investigation by KARE 11 revealed gaps in Minnesota’s mental health system. It earned the broadcast station a Peabody Award.
Before announcing Sandoval’s 38-year sentence on July 19, Judge Bartscher revealed that attorneys representing Sandoval mistakenly published documents that could be harmful to their client. She ordered that the published material could not be copied or used for “educational, research or demonstrative purposes, or used in any other fashion” besides court proceedings and asked attending media to destroy any copies.
Leita Walker and Isabella Salomão Nascimento, the Ballard Spahr attorneys representing KARE 11, wrote in their petition that Bartscher’s order “had immediate and far-reaching consequences on KARE 11′s reporting. For example, KARE 11 had planned to use non-sensitive information from the sentencing memorandum in a broadcast about Sandoval’s sentencing. For fear of contempt, however, KARE 11 omitted that information from the broadcast, which aired at 6:30 p.m. that day.”
Walker and Nascimento alleged the order violated the First Amendment’s prior restraint clause. Segal and the Court of Appeals agreed.
“To be sure, Sandoval has an interest in maintaining the privacy of his medical and other personal information, and he reasonably asserts that reporting on his medical history may negatively impact him,” Segal’s decision against Bartscher’s order read. Court of Appeals judges Diane Bratvold and Elise Larson also reviewed and endorsed the petition.
After stepping onto the highway, the victim was hit by a passing car.
