5.Gag-Order Violation, Sanctions, and Continuance Hearing
48 linesBOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, what I have marked as Court's exhibit number 62, this is, there is a video, it is on a CD in here, there is a blog on U-Tube, I believe it is called Mommy Ramblings blog. It appears that on or about April 25th Amber Kaiser begin chatting with the, the blog is a woman who puts a camera in her kitchen and she talks to people on the internet.
THE COURT: She called it a chat room, the lady on the video.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The host of the event called it the chat room of some type.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir. And at about an hour into the event a woman named Syfus Kaiser began commenting and reported that her husband was charged with murder of her five kids in Lexington County. The chats went on, they eventually asked her to call in, they opened up a phone line. It was, in fact, Amber Jones who called in to the blog on, she reported that there was a Gag Order in the case but that she could discuss information that was publicly available. She then called in and that call in section, approxiamtely a thirty minute phone call interview with the blogger woman which is what the Defense, a video captured the phone call portion, not the full blog, they are making that part of the record. In addition U-Tube has the ability to make a transcript, there is a close-captioned button near the bottom of the video. You can hit transcript and print the whole transcript of the blog. That is also included in Court's number 62.
This U-Tube URL was sent to the Defense on Saturday, that day we made the Court, the State, attorneys for Mr. Jones aware of the blog and what was going on with it. We said that we would be filing appropriate motions. That night, Saturday night I believe the video, the blog, she calls in the 25th, on the 26th she does call in and as far as I am aware it doesn't chat, I don't know, I didn't get a chance to review the whole thing, the case discussed at length, the case is suppose to begin on the 27th. She does chat some on the 27th, I don't have copies of those, those videos and blogs were taken down on Saturday night.
But also on Saturday night there was another blog that Amber did not call into but it was just a 14 minute video given by the same host where she went on about how somebody had sent the URL to Tim Jones' attorneys and now that Amber may be in trouble for violating the Gag Order and announcing that they were going to take down the whole videos and to start removing comments. Another video that was attached, evidently that person had requested donations be made to that site and Amber had always said she was not looking for any money, she didn't want people to send her any money, she wasn't setting up any accounts. So there a whole other video that was taken down as a result of all of this. At my last look, this video had been viewed some 10,000 plus times. As far as I know, obviously the Global media never got it. I don't know if any of the jurors got it, I don't have the, we were never able to get the chats.
There were a number of jurors, not jurors, but a number of people in the chat room who were saying that they were going to come to court with Amber, that they were going to support Amber, that they were local and near Amber and that Amber could stay with them if she needed a place to stay during court. They were going to help fly her mother in and then on the 14th she reported that the State had made arrangements for her family to come and she didn't need all of that. This is, I believe this is the fourth time that the Court has had to deal with violations of the Gag Order that was originally installed by Judge Russo back at the time of these events in early 2014. The first time was from the Sheriffs office where the Defense filed a motion for sanctions for a violation of the Gag Order, the sanctions were not granted but all the parties were made aware that the Gag Order meant something, it was in fact in place and that they needed to watch comments.
The second time was another violation from the sheriffs department and the Solicitor's office immediately jumped in, took corrective action and stopped it. We did not file a motion for sanctions, violation of the Gag Order at that time although we did address it on the record in court and I don't recall the date but the record will speak for itself. After that there was a third violation of the Gag Order where Ms. Jones went onto WIS and gave an interview. Her attorney went onto WIS in an attempt to do damage control. Her interview was mostly about her frustration at the delay in the trial. That interview has, of course, rerun this morning and this weekend in preparation of the jury selection in this trial. And then, of course, there was her giving an interview to the U-tube site on the 25th which we plead to be a violation of the Gag Order. At this time, based on the publicity and the continued violation of the Gag Order the Defense would move for appropriate sanctions and strike death as an available punishment. In the event that the Court feels that that is an inappropriate sanction for violating the Court's order we would move for a continuance and a change of venue.
THE COURT: All right. Solicitor.
RICK HUBBARD: Your Honor, I was here back in 2014, I believe it was when Judge Russo signed that Gag Order. I think not long after that legal council for the sheriffs department somehow made a statement, we had a hearing, Judge Russo said that he had not dealt directly with that issue, admonished everybody again, no one was sanctioned. The second issue with the sheriffs department, I have no idea what that is. It might have been when I was gone, I have no idea. No one has apprized me of that, any other issue until Amber Jones got on TV unbeknownst to us and to the Defense and did an interview and frankly unbeknownst to her sole attorneys. She pulled a solo. And Saturday I am sitting in my house, I got an email that she is on some chat line with some woman out of upstate New York on some Mommy what, Rambles. I have never heard of that. I have never been on chat line so it is not something I do.
Don't know why she was on, clearly she thought about the case, whether she had reached out to somebody far away, shoulder to lean on or she just wanted to talk about her case, I don't know. But, Judge, our position has always been, she is not acting for our behest. But out position has always been, we have five victims, the kids. And when it comes to Ms. Jones, we have always had to reach out through her attorney, I have never had to do that before frankly, and that is what she feels is necessary that is fine. But she is kind of an independent figure out there that I have no control over, the Defense has no control over and apparently there are times when her own attorneys that are representing her have no control over her. And to say that the State has to be sanctioned now, we don't have control over her, seems to be a little over the top. However Your Honor wants to handle it with Ms. Jones, obviously Your Honor has complete discretion in that. There is no fault on the State.
THE COURT: Well, I was aware and participated in the hearing, when the interview on the television station came out many months ago and I remember her civil lawyer was very apologetic and lacked client control the best way I can remember him representing to the Court is, it was against his advise, I remember that. But how can I sanction the State on something that they haven't been utilizing or using her as the victim, contact person, civil attorney can't give her advise that she will follow, Mr. Young.
BOYD YOUNG: We would have to have a hearing where she would testify to determine what they knew, when they knew it, who knew what.
THE COURT: I am not going to impose sanctions at this time. Now, I certainly think it is going to be appropriate for us to inquire to any of the potential jurors if they saw it and whether they did or not.
BOYD YOUNG: And there were a number of false statements made. One was about in South Carolina she was not allowed to bury the kids because Tim wouldn't agree to release the remains to her, not true. She says that she had a hearing with the Judge where she expressed that she was in fear of her safety, that Mr. Jones was not in shackles or visibly restrained during the hearing. As far as I am aware, the Court has never had a hearing with them about that.
THE COURT: I am not certain I have had a hearing with her in the courtroom.
BOYD YOUNG: Other than the released of her cell phone is the only hearing I am aware of that she was at.
THE COURT: Was she at that one?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I remember that hearing and that was early on, the copy of the cell phone contact list, text records, it was a copy of the cell phone to the civil attorney.
BOYD YOUNG: At that hearing, extensive discussion about the Gag Order, the nature of the Gag Order and the lifting of the Gag Order for the soul specific purpose of getting her cell phone was explained to her, to her attorneys and to all parties involved at that time.
THE COURT: It was.
BOYD YOUNG: There is a number of things that she said that were potential Brady evidence, where she said that Tim had never abused the kids, he had never directed any abuse to the kids, that Tim was a great Dad to the kids. He would never know something like this would happen, that he was an emotionalist, disconnected.
THE COURT: You are not suggesting that the State has been withholding that has Brady evidence when it was just published over the weekend without their knowledge, without your knowledge on a blogger U-Tube website?
BOYD YOUNG: No, sir. But this would be in direct contradiction to what the State furnished to us on Friday as her statement and regarding Tim's abuse.
THE COURT: And certainly if she is called as a witness, the Defense calls her as a witness, that is fair game.
BOYD YOUNG: She told the chat room that Tim had killed the kids because she was getting ready to get full custody of them.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, I want to inquire with the jurors as to whether they, what media they have seen because roughly half of the venire stood up when they said they have seen publicity. This could be considered one of those things. I don't mind inquiring into it with each Juror as to, you know, whether this was seen by them and/or it influenced them. And to the extent you say it is Brady material, I mean, if Ms. Jones testifies I don't see, I think it is fair game for you to utilize with her. I don't see why you wouldn't.
RICK HUBBARD: And I don't have any problem with that. First, it is not Brady material because it was never in our possession. The Defense notified us of the chat room.
THE COURT: Right. That is why I asked the first question, y'all would have provided it to them. If it is there I think it is fair game--
RICK HUBBARD: Whatever she says is fair game. I agree, Your Honor. Whoever might put her up they can ask whatever.
THE COURT: Recent statements made by her are fair game. But you disclosed it, Mr. Young, as soon as you found out about there was something out there. But I don't think until maybe yesterday did you get a full review of everything, did you?
BOYD YOUNG: I never did get a full review.
THE COURT: Right. So it is not nothing that anyone has been sitting on more than an hour or two. As soon as you saw it, the Defense, you sent it to the State, notice of it which was appropriate and then notified the blogger and they terminated upon that communication.
BOYD YOUNG: Rather than me to just wait for somebody to google her name. All you have to do is put her name in the google and U-Tube videos would come up.
THE COURT: Buy any statement she made during that interview, they are fair game for you or for the State to utilize if she makes a statement inconsistent with it if she is called as a witness. I think, I mean I think she can explain that.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I am not going to sanction anyone currently. If something else changes with her because I think I hear more from her and decide on that but the State is not going to be sanctioned for her independent behavior.
RICK HUBBARD: And just for the record, Your Honor. When Mr. Young sent that to us we turned around and forwarded it to her civil lawyers, letting them know who is talking and they needed to take control.
THE COURT: Okay. So for the record, I am not going to, I don't know the verb to use, but strike the intent to seek the death penalty from the State as a sanction. I am not going to do that.
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir. And for a continuance to try and collect and review the thirteen hours of video.
THE COURT: Thirteen hours, I thought it was an hour or so.
BOYD YOUNG: The one that she called into was four and a half hours long. There is another five and a half hour one the next day. There was another five and a half hour one, the next day that I forgot. And then there was a fourteen minute one on Saturday night and then there was another last night that was five and a half hours, I saw it briefly this morning.
THE COURT: Five to ten hours last night?
BOYD YOUNG: Five and a half hours last night, yes sir.
THE COURT: Amazing that she talks that much.
BOYD YOUNG: It is.
THE COURT: No sir, I am not getting a continuance on that. Any of it y'all want to use is free game but the State is obviously not going to use it, they can't get it and I will let either side use it if it is inconsistent with the testimony she provides if she is called.
BOYD YOUNG: I have given a copy of the video to the State today.
THE COURT: Okay.
BOYD YOUNG: The same one that is in the record.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, I am not going to grant a continuance on that basis.