Just a bit of more or less trivial clean up, here. After trial and conviction, Dow Jones moved to unseal (as "newsworthy") the portions of her defense papers that remained sealed, as to her claims of "a mental disease or defect bearing on guilt or innocence".
These are magic words in the law, as she ended up testifying about herself -- and NOT relying on any doctors' expert opinions of her mental state.
As such, the federal rules allow her to keep the doctors' papers. . . private. So, we are done -- in terms of reading more about this issue. In fact, Sonny's team has indicated it is "highly unlikely" that they will make her mental conditions an issue in defense -- in his ongoing trial. So, this is likely the end of the line, here. The able Judge Davilla will likely adopt this reasoning, in denying Dow Jones' renewed motion:
. . .As Dow Jones concedes, Ms. Holmes did not ultimately present expert testimony subject to Rule 12.2. Dkt. 1353-1 at 2. Rather, Dow Jones points to Ms. Holmes’ fact testimony as a way to unseal information related to Rule 12.2. Id. This argument is unpersuasive. Ms. Holmes’ fact testimony responded to the government’s case-in-chief, specifically to the numerous witnesses who testified (in response to government questioning) about their perception of the nature of the dynamic between Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwani. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 4057-58 (Edlin); 2979 (Burd); 1957-58 (Rosendorff). Ms. Holmes did not opine as to a mental condition bearing on guilt or otherwise invoke Rule 12.2, which this Court has held is required before the unsealing of the pleadings. . . .
Dow Jones’ argument that Ms. Holmes’s fact testimony waived her interest in keeping this information under seal is belied by the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 12.2, which state that “cases have indicated that the defendant waives the privilege if the defendant introduces expert testimony on his or her mental condition.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2 advisory committee’s note. There was no expert testimony and therefore no such waiver in this case. Dow Jones has a minimal First Amendment interest, at best, in filings that relate to expert testimony that was not presented at Ms. Holmes’ trial and that reference compelled statements by Ms. Holmes that contain highly sensitive and private information about Ms. Holmes’ relationship with Mr. Balwani.
This is particularly so because Dow Jones has access to what Ms. Holmes did use in her public trial -- the documents and testimony she introduced into evidence, as well as the government’s cross-examination of that testimony. . . .
Now you know -- and on this point at least, Ms. Holmes is correct: she retains a strong privacy interest in her doctor's treating papers, of any stripe.
Onward, with a grin. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment