Criminal
Jul. 30, 2002
Westerfield Judge Draws Line in the Sand for Media
SAN DIEGO - Superior Court Judge William D. Mudd saw the first signs of trouble with the media at the beginning of April. That was when David A. Westerfield's lawyers filed a motion seeking complaints in police files about officers who investigated their client.
The Pitchess motion, filed April 2, was routine, as common as motions to dismiss charges after the prosecution finishes its case. But it triggered a stampede of local and national reporters to Mudd's courtroom and a flood of almost hysterical reports. That was Mudd's first sight of what he has taken to calling a "feeding frenzy" by news media intent on treating any scrap of information about the case as a major story.
Suddenly, a judge with a long history of openness to the media found himself giving the media tongue-lashings and telling reporters that their conduct was "absolutely appalling."
Mudd repeatedly has said in court, in response to media challenges to his rulings to close hearings and seal records, that his first obligation is to ensure Westerfield a fair trial with a decision made by an untainted jury.
The judge also has forbidden anyone connected with the case from talking to the media during the trial. He said that all the information needed by the news media should come from the trial itself.
Mudd's response to media behavior is clearly an uncomfortable position for the 57-year-old judge, who was appointed to Superior Court in 1988 by Gov. George Deukmejian and was re-elected every six years since then.
Unlike some of his San Diego County colleagues, the judge customarily has welcomed the media in his courtroom, twice allowing Court TV to broadcast trials. The Westerfield trial also is being broadcast live by Court TV.
Westerfield is charged with kidnapping and murdering neighbor Danielle van Dam, 7, whose parents discovered early Feb. 2 that she had vanished from her upstairs bedroom. The search for Danielle made international headlines, and a bustling media village grew overnight in the van Dam's Sabre Springs neighborhood.
San Diego police arrested Westerfield Feb. 22. Five days later, volunteer searchers found Danielle's nude, decomposed body. Those two events fanned waning media interest into a flame that hasn't dimmed since and is expected to continue through a verdict in the trial, which could come within two weeks. Witnesses will continue offering rebuttal testimony when the trial resumes Tuesday.
Mudd's comment about appalling conduct came Wednesday, after television crews chased David Neal Westerfield, the defendant's son who just turned 19, and staked out courthouse exits in an effort to film him.
To protect Neal Westerfield's privacy, the judge had ordered courtroom cameras not to photograph him. The judge also has forbidden all filming and interviews in the third-floor corridor outside his court, so Neal Westerfield was followed by news crews into other parts of the courthouse.
The next day, Thursday, Mudd announced that two jurors had been followed to their cars Wednesday afternoon by someone who wrote down their license plate numbers. Mudd said it most likely was someone from the news media seeking to learn the identity of jurors, who have been identified in court only by numbers.
Speaking to a national audience as Court TV broadcast his words, Mudd warned the news media that one more breach of decorum by the media would result in cameras being banned from the courtroom.
First Amendment lawyer Guylyn Cummins said reporters are entitled to use legal means to gather information about jurors so that, after the trial, they can ask the jurors to explain their verdict.
"I'm not aware of any threats or improper contact," Cummins said.
Los Angeles lawyer Kelli L. Sager, also a First Amendment expert, said the news media, in the absence of an order from a judge, have a right to gather information about jurors as long as the reporters don't interfere with their duties as jurors.
In this case, the jurors are anonymous. Their names have never been spoken publicly; they are referred to by number in all courtroom proceedings. Mudd has told the jurors that, when the trial is over, they can reveal their names if they wish.
Sager said the law is unclear about whether a judge can allow jurors to be anonymous without a compelling reason such as danger from organized crime or violent gangs.
"In a case like this, I can't fathom any reason for keeping the identities secret," Sager said.
San Diego County sheriff's deputies are trying to learn who followed the jurors and whether laws were broken, said Lt. Frank Nunez of the court services bureau.
Claude Walbert
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com