Un-sealing In-Camera Hearings

During Jury Deliberations:  Guilt Phase

November 4, 2004

JUDGE: And one other thing before I entertain arguments from the media. There was a stipulation that the jury can be excused at 4:00 o'clock to avoid the traffic going back to their lodgings, with the standard admonition. And I just want to read the admonition into the record, because this is the admonition that the twelve deliberating jurors are given. This is the particular one. It says, you are not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person, or form or express any opinions about this case. And you must not deliberate further upon this case until all twelve of you are together and reassembled in the jury room. You are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, or discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. So that's the standard admonition that the jury is being given in the evening when they leave. The alternates are also being admonished, but that part about you are not to deliberate further upon the case until all twelve of you are together and reassembled in the jury room, that part is not being given to the alternates. Okay? All right. Now we have Miss Wilcox. Is Mr. Olson coming?

WILCOX: Not to my knowledge.

JUDGE: All right. Is there a place you can step up? I don't want you to stand up here like an outsider.

WILCOX: Is it all right if I stand over here? Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE: Go ahead. I reviewed the stuff, and I think I have seen most of the stuff before.

WILCOX: What should I address first? Or would you like me to address the issue --

JUDGE: Whatever you want to do. If you want, why don't you start with access to the transcripts of the in-camera hearings.

WILCOX: Thank you.

JUDGE: Start with that. And then, I tell you what, let's do that. And then you can go on to whether I reconsider cameras for the verdict. We'll do that last.

WILCOX: Thank you, your Honor. There are a number of settled propositions I'm going to reiterate today. First of all, we're entitled to challenge sealing orders. That's established by NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal.4th 1178. Second of all, chambers conferences are subject to a right of access. That's also established by NBC Subsidiary. That's at page 1215. Third, we are entitled to notice before the hearings were -- before any matters were sealed, and an opportunity to be heard as to any sealing. That is the only way for the press to have -- and the public to have any realistic chance to challenge and to make sure that the Court follows the requirements established by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. We have heard about many of the things after the fact, after matters are addressed in chambers, after matters had been sealed. I am here to request that the Court apply the NBC Subsidiary test to those matters and unseal those things which should not have been sealed.

JUDGE: Can I ask you a question? Were you going to sit here throughout this whole trial so we can give you notice?

WILCOX: I'm sorry?

JUDGE: Can you explain to me how we were supposed to give you notice during the course of this trial when there are two or three in-camera proceedings in any one given day? Were you going to be present? How are we supposed to give notice to --

WILCOX: You could give notice to the media that these matter are going --

JUDGE: Media has been in here all along.

WILCOX: Then know that you go in chambers with counsel frequently, but they don't know when you do.

JUDGE: That's an understatement, frequently.

WILCOX: I apologize, your Honor. But I'm going on what I have understood.

JUDGE: That's okay. Go ahead.

WILCOX: This morning you and counsel spoke in chambers. When I spoke with you before in chambers, it was a lot of informal stuff.

JUDGE: We were talking about -- we weren't talking about the case. As a matter of fact, we were talking about other -- just idle gossip.

WILCOX: Sure. As when I spoke with you in chambers. But that means that there is --

GERAGOS: That's an understatement.

WILCOX: There was -- the result is there is no way for the media to distinguish between what is informal and what is formal. There is no way for the media to know in advance when something substantive is going to be addressed. When I was before the Court on July 14th, we heard about a 402 hearing that had happened before. And at that time I didn't know about it. I didn't know if any member of the media had heard about it. I have since been told that that was the first that we had learned about that 402 hearing. We hear about things because there are -- they are mentioned in chambers. Mr. Geragos will say this was handled at a 402 hearing. So we can't go into that. And we know that something substantive has happened. But we also know that there is nothing in the record to reflect it. There is nothing in the record to show what was addressed and whether or not the Court undertook to balance the NBC Subsidiary --

JUDGE: I hate to interrupt you there. I just want to let you know there is something in the record. I just want to point out, just so -- there is this misconception that these are some kind of secret hearings back here. And, as you know, in a capital case everything has to be reported. So there is a reporter's transcript of every conference that took place in chambers. It's been memorialized. And the Court did make the necessary findings under 243.1 of the California Rules of Court. I just want to let you know that they are, indeed, in the record. Go ahead.

WILCOX: That is not a record to which the media has any kind of access. And it's not a record to which the public -- it is important for the public to -- of course, it's well established that the proceedings are required to be public. And the reason is that the public needs to understand that the end result is going to be a just one, and the public needs to understand that the process is fair, and that the process is fair to everybody, and it needs to be open, and it needs to be visible, and there is nothing in the record that is open to the public to --

JUDGE: Do you think -- let me interrupt you again. I hate to be -- public needs to understand. Am I to understand, then, that I should entertain constant motions for mistrials in this particular case, which is because of the public's need to understand? There is also the issue of the defendant's right to a fair trial that I'm addressing as well. Get along here. But I keep hearing about the public's need to understand -- understand it, because I like to know as much as a member of the public as anybody else. But you know what this case is about. You know about all the pretrial publicity this case has had. You know about the ongoing publicity. Just take a look in the courtroom here. And, as you know, the Court has to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial against the public's need to understand. I don't want you to think I'm antagonistic to the media, or hostile to the media. But I have an awesome responsibility here. I hope you understand that.

WILCOX: And we do respect and understand that.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

WILCOX: You mentioned the motion for mistrial. That ultimately was a matter that was held in open court. And it was a matter that your Honor indicated he intended to have behind closed doors initially in a closed proceeding. And when that issue had been given some public exposure, you decided that there was no more -- no additional reason to have it in closed proceeding. And that's an example of something that, respectfully, we believe would not have met the NBC Subsidiary test, and should not have been considered for a closed proceeding at the inception. There was no fallout from that, so to speak. There is nothing to suggest that that affected anything that the jury has done or should be doing. The test is high. As your Honor has said before, your Honor recognizes that he's required to assume that the jury listens to your admonitions. You are required under NBC Subsidiary to assume that the jury is staying away from the media exposure in this case, that the jury is not listening to the reports and not reading the newspapers. That is something that requires a leap of faith to some degree. It's also something that you are -- that NBC Subsidiary makes clear you must --

JUDGE: Okay. Should I also be tempting fate by letting this stuff be public, and hoping that somewhere along the line this is not going to be leaked to the media, to be leaked to the jury, either inadvertently or by design? Am I supposed to just accept that these things aren't going to happen?

WILCOX: Under NBC Subsidiary, the answer is yes. The Supreme Court has told you, and other courts like you, that you have to meet this very stringent four-part test. And that in evaluating it, it's not -- suspicion or speculation is not enough. You have to have some reason to believe that it's going to get to the jury. You have to have heard that a juror is telling other jurors about --

JUDGE: Go ahead. I have some stuff here for you. I'm going to show you in just a minute.

WILCOX: That a juror is telling other jurors about evidence that they are not hearing about. It's a very high test. And it is intentionally so. It is designed -- and the process that the Court is supposed to go through in order to comply with the test, I submit, is designed to make it a little difficult to close proceedings about every substantive -- the proceeding is held behind closed doors, the Court is supposed to go through the NBC Subsidiary test, find there is an overriding interest that supports closure. That there is a substantial probability that the interests would be prejudiced absent closure. That closure is narrowly tailored. There is no less restrictive means of achieving that overriding interest. It requires specific on-the-record findings, and conclusory assertions and general rationalizations are inadequate. If the Court does not have the specific facts to show that in that hearing, you have to go through this analysis in every hearing.

JUDGE: I did.

WILCOX: We didn't --

JUDGE: I did. They were done in chambers. I did make the findings.

WILCOX: Okay. I mean none of that was done in --

JUDGE: It was not done in open court. The Court complied religiously, scrupulously, with California Rule of Court 243.1 in every one of those hearings.

WILCOX: Okay. Well, then we are, at this point, at a different point in time now. The jury is deliberating. Now the question is, should those records remain sealed. Should they --

JUDGE: Do you think this is a prudent time to let this information out when the jury is deliberating?

WILCOX: If the Court doesn't think it should be done during the deliberation, we would ask that the Court order that they be unsealed when the deliberations are concluded.

JUDGE: What if there is a hung jury? Do you think I should also unseal them if there is a hung jury?

WILCOX: Of course we cannot know what is excluded.

JUDGE: You understand it took us almost three months to select a jury in this case because of all the publicity and all the preconceived notions that the defendant was, in fact, guilty. And I'm here trying to give this guy a fair trial. I'm trying to sort out all these people. Do you think that that might have a deleterious effect on public opinion of the defendant if all this information was leaked out after there was a hung jury?

WILCOX: The Court has repeatedly recognized that thorough jury questioning. And even if it takes time, the remedy is to --

JUDGE: Move it to Los Angeles.

WILCOX: Do it during voir dire. Mr. Geragos goes through this idea, he would be in -- Los Angeles is a tremendous community, and there is no question. My office is in Los Angeles, even if I live in Sacramento.

JUDGE: Don't tempt me, Mr. --

GERAGOS: I'll give her a ride to court.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

WILCOX: There is no question that it would take time, but that doesn't justify the closure. The Supreme Court and -- the U.S. and California Supreme Courts have said we know that there are costs that have to paid for an open court system. We know that even if it takes sequestering the jury, that is a cost that the courts have to -- seriously have to consider in evaluating whether or not record proceedings should be closed. That is something that the courts have acknowledged as a possibility, even though it's a tremendous burden on the jury.

JUDGE: Jury is sequestered now, as you know.

WILCOX: Of course. That means they have even less access to information. There is, of course, the possibility that there will be a mistrial. But in evaluating the NBC Subsidiary test, that's not enough. It has to be an overriding interest that supports closure. Admittedly defendant's fair trial rights are an overriding interest. There are so many things that this court -- or if there happens to be a mistrial another court, can do to address those issues. Extensive voir dire --

JUDGE: Okay. Can I just -- I hate to keep interrupting this thing.

WILCOX: That's fine.

JUDGE: I want to give you an example. This was provided to me. This is Court TV. Look, right there now. This was a matter that was -- that was dealt with here in open court. And I had to redact one of these interviews. I believe it was the Diane Sawyer interview. But here it is. Peterson refuses to take a lie detector test.

WILCOX: Was that the subject one of your hearings?

JUDGE: No, it was -- that was done out here in open court. Peterson -- so this was put in there. Okay? Fine. This was done in open court. Now, supposing inadvertently a juror -- we know -- you know that, we both know that lie detector tests are not admissible in evidence. But if somebody sees that this potential juror inadvertently finds out Peterson refused to take a lie detector test, not knowing the nuances of the law, he may think this guy won't take a lie detector test. Obviously if he is going to take a lie detector test they would know that he committed the crime. This is just an example about the kind of stuff that -- I don't have any hair now, and I won't have any hair left over worrying about this stuff. Also, there is something here about the Viagra tablets in the car when he was arrested. That is a subject matter of an in-camera hearing. And I weighed the probative versus the prejudicial, whether or not we are going to go into the sex life of the defendant and Laci Peterson, and so forth. And I decided it was prudent just to keep that out, because I didn't think it merited, you know, dragging their sex life into this trial. But here, in Court TV now, I don't know how they got that.

WILCOX: And I would not -- your decisions about what can and cannot come into the trial, that's a different issue from your decisions about what can and cannot be addressed in open court. You are, respectfully, speculating that that might get to the jury, and that's not enough.

JUDGE: That's true, I am. I'm worried about that.

WILCOX: That's not enough. You don't have any basis for believing, and you have more information than me. So if I'm wrong, please tell me. But, to my understanding, there is nothing to suggest that this jury is doing something you told it not to do. You have admonished it regularly. And the California Supreme Court said, NBC Subsidiary, that that is a remedy to tell the jury at the beginning of the day, and to tell them at the end of the day as firmly as you can, you are not allowed to see what's in the media.

JUDGE: So you are telling me that we should never have any in-camera hearings? All should be made public? We should just throw it all out there and just hope that nobody on the jury hears about it, and that if they follow the instructions that the Court gives religiously that there won't be any problems?

WILCOX: I'm telling you NBC Subsidiary --

JUDGE: I know what NBC subsidiary -- everybody in the room world here --

WILCOX: But that is a case applied to the real world. That's Clint Eastwood and Sondra Locke. It was two people in a very highly publicized case. It was evidence that Clint Eastwood allegedly forced Sondra Locke to get an abortion. That was in a 402 hearing behind closed doors. The California Supreme Court said it should not have been closed without meeting this test.

JUDGE: I don't want to keep getting on your case, but was there two years of this invasive publicity that was on TV every night, you know. About Sondra Locke and Clint Eastwood? Was it on TV every night? Did they have cars parked in front of their houses? Were they insisting in going over and talking to witnesses? Do you see there is a difference between this case and the Clint Eastwood? And do you see there is any distinction between these two cases?

WILCOX: There is, but --

GERAGOS: Could I interject one thing?

JUDGE: Wait a minute. Miss Wilcox has not completed. You will have your day in court, Mr. Geragos. Trust me.

WILCOX: But the NBC Subsidiary test was prefaced on a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving criminal cases. Death penalty criminal cases. The Press Enterprise Two involved the nurse who was accused of having killed twelve people under his care, and there was tremendous publicity in that case. There have been -- this case feels like the highest publicity case. But there have been a number -- a large number of high publicity cases, and they generate the law that says we still think courts have to be open. We still think --

JUDGE: This court was open.

WILCOX: But we still then -- even the stuff that the jury doesn't see, there is a value in the public seeing it. There is, in fact, more of a value there the public seeing -- in the public seeing what the jury sees, because the jury is going to evaluate this case. And they are going to come up with their decision. But they don't get -- the public has to evaluate the entire proceedings. The public is entitled to see the entire proceedings and to know what happened, and entitled to understand why your Honor believes, appropriately, that there is no reason to let the jury know about Viagra. But that's something that the public is entitled to know about, because it gives them a better understanding of the case as a whole. And getting back to the point that I was making before, there is no reason that that information shouldn't get into the Court TV website and get to the public. It is not that is -- it's not like if Mr. Peterson had confessed. It's not something that is absolutely going to sway the jury. That's what the balancing test calls on the Court to do, to figure out what the jury just cannot know. What the jury -- what is so important and so significant that you can't let it get to the public? Because even the chance that the jury finds out about it is going to sway all of them. But what we understand, what we're speculating, of course about, what you have kept from -- what you have done in chambers. But the bulk of it because there was so much of it --

JUDGE: Yes, there was.

WILCOX: There is a lot of it. It suggested that the Court balanced it on the side of closure anyway, that you should not have, because you are concerned about the extent of exposure this case has seen.

JUDGE: But don't you think that's a fair consideration?

WILCOX: It is a fair consideration. But you are still bound by NBC Subsidiary. And you still have to assume that the jury follows your admonitions. And you still have to -- it's a strict test. And, respectfully, we question whether so much evidence can be -- so many hearings can be -- can comply with this strict test.

JUDGE: Well, one thing you are not aware of is that some of the information that did take place in chambers that was sealed, also was gone into in trial as the issues unraveled.

WILCOX: Mainly that only -- respectfully, I think that that makes the case for unsealing better. If the information made it to the jury and it didn't destroy the prosecution or the defense's case.

JUDGE: But that's hindsight, isn't it?

WILCOX: It is, but it's not. Your job is to look at the big picture.

JUDGE: That's right.

WILCOX: Part of that job is to take into account the public's interest; and the public's interest as reiterated by NBC Subsidiary and all of the U.S. Supreme Court cases is to see and understand the judicial process. And those courts have made clear it's not just what the jury sees. It's everything else. Unless you meet a very strict test --

JUDGE: I have reviewed all this as part of the record. If you don't mind, I understand. I understand your position, okay? Did you want to --

GERAGOS: I'd like to interject about NBC Subsidiary. The case she is talking about is a civil case that's tried in the Burbank Superior Court in front of the magnificent number of three reporters. Only because one reporter from the LA Times who is no longer there was locked out of one particular hearing, that they decided to take it up. That case got zero publicity at the time. None. It was a civil case. The lawyer who was involved with it is a very good friend of mine who tried that case. He says that -- and I have talked to him about it, because it gets the -- always, every single one of these motions, gets cited. It's the holy grail of examples. That case had nothing to do -- was not a capital murder case. It was not a case where, as this court indicated, you spent three months trying to find an impartial jury. It was not a case where you had to change venue because of the hostility and prejudgment rate that existed in the community from which we originally were drawn. It was not a case where you had roving billboards asking people to vote on the defendant's guilt or innocence. It was not a case where they had billboards that said "Man or Monster?" on the sides of the freeway. It was not a case where one particular TV channel devotes wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage along, with a jury deliberation clock that gives minute-by-minute how long the jury has been out. It was not a case where the media was out writing down the license numbers of the jurors and trying to get at the jurors. It was not a case where -- in this specific case we have already had instances of the jurors being broached, or insinuated, over the media insinuating themselves into the jury box. It's not a case where we have had the media insinuate themselves and interview witnesses who were under the gag order. It's not a case where a gentleman is on -- who I have asserted repeatedly is factually innocent, is on trial for his life, his very life, and the media believes that you have to just willy nilly decide to go -- every time you feel like it go into chambers. That has not been the case. I'm here to reiterate that every time this court has gone in there has been a detailed factual finding under the California Rules of Court in the matter. They have generally became the subject, through either testimony or strategic considerations by the lawyers, subject to coming into evidence. Then it came into evidence, and the public had the right to know it. There has been countless amounts of 402 information which this court did do in open court. It's almost as if we have no institutional memory here. We spent the entire month of February doing 402 hearings. You excluded large parts of some of those. Some of those the public was here, and the public got to hear it. But in other instances where it would -- and the Court made findings. The Court specifically said this is not something that I think the public should know this right now, before I try to select a jury. Or, in other instances, this is not something that needs to come in, because it's -- under 352 it's more prejudicial than probative. There has been more information leaked out of this case, false information that's been leaked out of this case when it's here in the courtroom. It's real -- almost as if the people who are observing this case are on a different planet, or watching a different trial. Even when the evidence comes into the courtroom, if you watch what is reported on the basis of what transpired during the day, the very next day, you wonder if you were in the same courtroom, or if they read the same transcript. There is things that are just demonstrably false. So the only way the Court can marshal and get its arms around this case is to do what it does, is very judiciously select instances in which it's going to make a detailed finding under 243. Do that, and keep that sealed. And as the Court we says, don't know what's going to happen. Nobody at the point knows what is going to happen as much as the twelve people who are deliberating, and until such time as there is either a verdict, or there is no verdict, then we need to cross this bridge. Until then, it's the height of folly to just blanket say we want all this stuff unsealed. I think it's ridiculous.

JUDGE: Mr. Harris.

David Harris: Yes. Just to go long with what Mr. Geragos is saying. I think he's right. We probably have a file cabinet full of these motions from the media at this point in time. It's always the same boilerplate. It's the same thing over and over and over again. They even ignore half the time what the underlying principles of their cases, other than saying we are like two-year-olds, we have the right to know. The Press Enterprise Two case dealt with the suppression issue. And it talked about how the parties in that particular case, if you want to have it closed, you have to show -- you have to meet the burden why. Now, the Court has been through this process when we have gone back in chambers with these hearings, and that's what's been done. I mean, as counsel indicates, the Court has been aware of its duty, has done it, has followed the law. Now we're hearing the media once again trying to say we need a seat at the table. We need to be here and say time out wherever we don't get what we want, and put a stop to a criminal trial where it's been going on and on and on. And just imagine how long this proceeding would have been if we had to stop every time we had to go back into chambers and the media said, no, let's do something if they didn't like the Court's previous rulings. We addressed this issue once before, I believe it was back in July, on July 14th, almost the same thing. You need to have public hearings. You need to do this. They have a remedy. They could have taken the writ. They could have taken an appeal. It has never been done. So here we're, once again, asking for the same thing because they didn't get what they want. And the Court is aware of its duty. The Court has been following its duty. And this case is so distinguishable from NBC Subsidiary it's not even funny. When you go through this process, look at that particular case, the little bit of the media coverage versus the invasive coverage, the absolute false coverage. And the Court has got information up there before it, that it is possible that it could get to the jury. Counsel keeps saying we're all speculating. The difference between this case and that case is, it's almost impossible to escape the coverage in this particular case. We did the change of venue. One of the things that we were pointing out to the Court before was there was coverage on Al Jazeera. There is coverage in China. There is coverage in Israel. So how is the Court to balance that right to a fair trial of the parties versus the media's right to know, and allowing the media to control themselves, which they have refused to do in this particular case, would violate the fundamental right to a fair trial. And so the people think that these particular documents, the Court is taking the appropriate steps, and they should stay sealed until there is no longer a possibility that they can be used or needed in this particular criminal case.

JUDGE: Miss Wilcox.

WILCOX: A couple of points. I was here for the July 14th hearing. That addressed a request to close a motion for mistrial. That ultimately was open. There was -- that is the only hearing that I am aware of that has addressed this issue. We really have just learned about this slowly over the course of the last few month. We addressed it on July 14th, and in response to rumors that were circulating. And ultimately that was an open hearing. So there is no reason for us to take a writ. The Court indicated that he would open as much as possible. The Court followed the NBC Subsidiary processes to then ultimately open it all. So for the prosecution to argue that we're here complaining when we should have done something about it before really doesn't make much sense. I mean we have not been privy to many of the communications -- and it was only in the last few weeks since the defense was presenting its case, as the chambers conferences got frequent, that we decided that it was something that we needed to address. I don't think that there is really any reason to suggest that we waived our rights, or anything of that sort.

JUDGE: You haven't waived your right.

WILCOX: NBC Subsidiary, that was true that it was a civil case, that was. But the Press Enterprise Two was involving the nurse who killed twelve people got a lot of publicity. The U.S. Supreme Court case, one of the first ones, involved a case that there had seen three mistrials. This was the fourth trial, and the Court decided to close the trial. And the U.S. Supreme Court said, no, you cannot do that. You have to consider sequestering the jury. You cannot, just by fear that the jury is going to get this information, keep it from the public.

JUDGE: But I would like to point out, in this trial. I'm sure you may be aware of this that the daily transcript is being put on the internet every day. When the exhibits are admitted into evidence those are also being put on the internet. So this -- also the media was present during jury selection. So I don't think you can -- I don't believe you are suggesting this, but all I'm saying is that we have tried -- bearing -- keeping in mind these competing interests, to make this trial as public as a prudently could under the circumstances. Because I think, Miss Wilcox, I know -- like I said, I don't want you to think I'm hostile toward you. But you have your job to do, and I have my job to do. And we are trying to do it to the best of our ability. And I'm trying to run this -- I'm trying to preserve the integrity of this trial to the best of my ability. We have been here ten months. Right? We have -- there has been, as Mr. Geragos pointed out, the first day I drove up here there were trucks all over the place. There is the big billboard out here, as I'm sure you are aware. This case is different from any other case, and I would invite a reviewing court to take a look at this case and say, okay, judge, you should have done that. You should leave all that stuff -- let it all hang out, see what would happen at the time with your little admonishment. But can you imagine the emotions that's been tied up in this case by the families that are involved, the effort that's been put on by the prosecution, the effort that's been put in by the defense in this case? The financial cost to Stanislaus County, and the financial cost to San Mateo County? The Court has to take all that into consideration. The primary consideration is the defendant's right to fair trial. But I have to be very judicious as to what I'm going to let out there in the airways, you know. I hope -- I'd like to take you and sit you right here and run these arguments by you and see what your reaction would be. Go ahead.

WILCOX: Your Honor, we respect the position the Court is in. And we understand that you have had a difficult job, and that you have balanced it in a way that has made it easier for the parties and livable for the families, and in a way that has allowed everybody to get through the trial. But, respectfully, if it had taken an extra two weeks to have gone through the process, that would have -- that was necessary. That didn't happen. And now we sit here, the jury is out, and the jury is sequestered. And the question presented today is, should we open these up now? There is a possibility of a mistrial. Your Honor knows better than I do -- you have sat through this -- how good that possibility is. But, respectfully, the possibility is not enough to maintain the seal on these transcripts. And maybe what it requires is a reevaluation from the perspective of hindsight of what has been sealed and what has not. What, you know, the jury knows at this point, and what you just think would make a tremendous difference if the jury were to hear about it; and reevaluation to determine whether everything that was sealed still needs to be sealed. A lot has happened in chambers. And we can only assume that there are some things that would not meet the NBC Subsidiary test at this point.

JUDGE: Okay. Well, I'm prepared to make my ruling this morning. It's the Court's ruling here that the documents that the Court, in-camera hearings will not be unsealed. They can be unsealed upon the direction of a reviewing court. The Court has already found that there is an existing overriding interest supporting closure. That there would be a substantial probability the interest would be prejudiced absent closure. As I have already mentioned, the interest -- not to mention some of the privacy of the witnesses that were also issues that were raised. The Court is satisfied that the closure was narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest, and the Court couldn't think of any less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. There is a few other things I would like to point out. The Court's -- part of the Court's determination is that the defendant's right to a fair trial is the paramount interest to be considered. There would have been a substantial probability that the he defendant's right to a fair trial would be prejudiced absent the in-camera conferences being held private, particularly since we have had newly discovered evidence was coming in, potentially sensitive information could affect the fairness of the trial. Those issues have come up. In this case there was 42,000 of discovery. As this case was being tried, newly discovered evidence was coming in, evidence that neither side was aware of, that had to be dealt with. That some of this stuff turned out -- some of this evidence turned out to have no evidentiary value. I don't see any point in throwing it out there in the hopes that this would not get to the jury. I have instructed the jury religiously, in order to protect the record, that closure of the in-chambers conferences or the in-camera conferences was narrowly tailored to serve the defendant's interest and his right to fair trial. Now, the media has been here every day. And I have no criticism of the media that's been here. They have -- media here has been cooperative. I don't have any quarrel with the media that's been here. They have been respectful. They have followed the directions. They are free to write whatever they want. This a free country. The press can write whatever they want. But as I told you before, I have this awesome burden of trying to ensure that Mr. Peterson gets a fair trial. I got into this case after the case was, what, a year and half old already? We had a change of venue. And for all these reasons, you know, that this is a case that goes to the head of the class as far as I'm concerned. And there is the possibility, however remote, that some of this information can find its way to the jury, and then I'm going to be sitting up here, this little old guy is going to be sitting up here, I'm going to have to decide whether or not I'm going to have to grant a mistrial because of this prejudicial publicity. With all the considerations, as I have said, we have spent ten months here now going over this case, and that's just the way it is. So it's not the Court's intention to unseal those in-chambers conferences, and it's not the Court's intention to hamstring the Court by holding future substantive conferences in open court. The Court still reserves the right to conduct an in-chambers hearing when I believe that the interests of the defendant's right to a fair trial is being threatened or could be affected. And I'm balancing the public's right to know versus the defendant's right to fair trial. And I believe that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's right to a fair trial truly is the defendant's. The public's right to know only has to do -- the in-camera hearing, I'm painfully aware of the cases that talk about that you are citing. But there has to be a distinction drawn between Clint Eastwood getting a divorce and the guy here who is on trial for his life. It's a capital case. And as Mr. Geragos pointed out, there had to be a change of venue because of the publicity that it received. And I even said at the beginning, Mr. Geragos was agitating for a change of venue down to Los Angeles. The only place you could send this case probably where they wouldn't hear about it -- I'm not so sure about that -- would be send it to Mars, you know. That's the only place where you could try this case where nobody would know anything about it. It's been all over the world. Here we're in Redwood City, and we're arguing over this. I'm not -- you are a lawyer. You got your job to do. I have my job to do, and that's going to be the Court's ruling. Okay?

WILCOX: Thank you, your Honor.