OGDEN — One of Matthew David Stewart’s defense attorneys has filed a motion opposing a gag order sought by prosecutors for the duration of the proceedings against the accused killer of Ogden Police Officer Jared Francom.
“While defense counsel recognizes the importance of not trying this case in the press, there are some concerns regarding a blanket gag order, given the magnitude of the case and some of the misinformation that has already been disseminated to the press,” Randy Richards wrote in the motion.
Stewart is charged in the Jan. 4 shootout at his home that left Francom dead and five other officers injured. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.
Richards was retained by Stewart’s family within a few days after the shooting. His involvement has become controversial since Weber County officials pressed for appointment of public defenders for Stewart.
At the appointment of the two public defenders Feb. 7, prosecutors asked 2nd District Judge Noel Hyde to sign a gag order that would limit the comments to the press made by attorneys on both sides of the case.
The order had not been signed as of Friday and could be delayed further by Richards’ motion if Hyde elects to hear arguments. Otherwise, the next hearing in the Stewart case is not until March 19.
In the motion, Richards wrote he opposes the gag order as it would hinder “correcting erroneous or adverse publicity.”
As it only would apply to the lawyers involved, “other individuals may release information to the press that could potentially be contrary to the goal of a fair and impartial jury.”
The motion also claims that information has already been released about Stewart that is “potentially misleading and factually prejudicial,” but gave no examples.
“Furthermore, due to the often confusing nature of legal filings, arguments, and orders, occasionally the press gets it wrong,” Richards wrote.
As an example, some media incorrectly reported the appointment of public defenders Ryan Bushell and William Albright as replacing Richards.
But the Standard-Examiner, according to the motion, correctly reported the proceedings because of questions asked after the Feb. 7 hearing to clarify the appointments, which the gag order would prevent.
Comments