Constitutional Law

Ala. high court refuses to change venue for murder trial

By By The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Attorneys representing a man accused of killing an Auburn University freshman tried to get his trial moved to another county by citing hostile messages posted on a newspaper?s website that called for his immediate execution.

Attorneys for Courtney Lockhart wanted the Alabama Supreme Court to address for the first time the impact that website messages might have on potential jurors for a trial, but the Supreme Court turned down their request 7-1 without explanation.

Circuit Judge Jacob Walker III has forbidden attorneys from commenting and has sealed most of the court records to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial in Lee County, where Auburn University is located. But the records involving the Supreme Court?s Oct. 7 decision were not sealed and were reviewed by the Associated Press on Oct. 12.

Lockhart?s trial is scheduled for Nov. 8 in Opelika. The judge has told defense attorneys that they can again seek to move the trial after they question potential jurors next month.

Lockhart, 25, of Smiths Station, faces three counts of capital murder in connection with the 2008 kidnapping and shooting death of 18-year-old Lauren Burk of Marietta, Ga. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

Lockhart?s arrest generated national news coverage including a segment on the TV show ?America?s Most Wanted.?

His attorneys, Joel Collins and Jeremy Armstrong, urged the state Supreme Court to go beyond reviewing the traditional news-media coverage. Instead, they asked the state?s highest court to issue a first-of-its-kind ruling for Alabama that addresses comments posted by readers on the website for Lee County?s daily newspaper, the Opelika-Auburn News. They argued that the comments likely prejudiced potential jurors.

The comments, posted under pseudonyms, and contained in the records included:

?He should have been executed and buried already.?

?Stick ?em in the ground 6 feet under. Why waste taxpayers money on trying this murderer!?

The defense attorneys argued that court decisions about pretrial publicity haven?t caught up with the public?s desire for getting more news from websites and that the public comments posted on a popular newspaper website must be viewed by the courts the same as editorials printed in a newspaper.

Retired Circuit Judge Joe Colquitt, who teaches at the University of Alabama Law School, said Oct. 12 that website comments have become the new version of letters to the editor when it comes to seeking to change the location of a trial, but the comments are more plentiful than letters to the editor and they don?t have a real name attached.

?It?s the same issues raised before. It?s just in a new format,? he said.

He said there is always the possibility that many of the anonymous comments might be posted by the same person in an effort to influence a judge to act a certain way.

Walker previously rejected the defense attorneys? argument that pretrial publicity had likely prejudiced potential jurors and the trial should be moved to another county. The judge ruled in April that the traditional newspaper stories about the case ?are not generally editorial or opinion-based.?

The judge did acknowledge that some comments posted on the Internet were ?at times inflammatory.? But he said defense attorneys did not show they were so prejudicial that they would deny Lockhart a fair jury for his trial. He also noted that the number of comments had dropped off considerably over time.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on October 13, 2010 (boomark / email).