(2/20/2017 Fon Lem yAE=-+ oerLEA 79 aeez/a03 District Attorney's Office Tifton Judicial Circuit PAUL BOWDEN ‘dmiiratve Bung. Roam 314 District Attorney rt te x ia amare wenn nen Ba) sce rs sommes (Gta) a90-r7 ra) February 28, 2017 Re: Ryan Alexander Duke CChiet Hancock, ‘The Defendant, Ryan Alexander Duke, through his atlomey, fled a Motion requesting ‘that the Court issue a “gag” order in the prosecution ofthe casa against Duke and the CCourt has granted the Motion and issued a "gag" order. A copy of the Order Is Included herewith. Please share with your Department as well as any officers who were formerty with your dopartment and had some connection with or knowledge ofthe investigation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call, Thank you.e2/2u/30.7 eye 16039 AE === OCTEEA FD . — TON JUDICIAL Cigcurr Charies A Kent Admin. Bid DisTRICT ATTORNEY's OFFICE Paul Bowden inthot Attomay Post oftte Box 1252 Suning 1m, Worth, Tamer ‘Ton, Georgie 17-1282 ‘holvin Coonton {220} s007osr cra FACSIMILE COVERSHEET Te: Cer Buty Hancock raxw 2 YOB - ZT 3 From Paul Bowden Dave: Feanuanv28, 2017 Re: ‘STATE V. RYAN ALEXANDER DUKE /“GAG" OneR Pages: Spaces, mewuowe covensueer Message: Billy, “Judge Cross entered a ‘gag! order today in the Duke case and required that! notty law enforcement. Fel free to call me at any time, Pa; ‘connmemuumnonce Sie cnrors wears rou iyo ave Msn nanan toate Nn Dae02/20/2017 son 16192 FAK =e QeTLAA PO aavsvees IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IRWIN COUNTY ‘STATE OF GEORGIA STATE OF GEORGIA Warrant Nos.17-38FW vs : 47-30FW s7-408W RYAN ALEXANDER DUKE, 17-atFW Defendant. 5 REST ICIAL STATEME! SECUTION, 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE, TIAL WITNESSES, AND COURT PERSONNEL. BECAUSE this case is high profile and has generated extensive media coverage, and because the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fai tial may be prejudiced by extrajudicl statements, the Court has considered and weighed the issue and hereby tinds that there isa reasonable lIkethood that the Bofendant’s Sixth ‘Amendment right to afar tal by an impartial jury may be prejudiced by extra judicial statements, Therefore this Cour finds that an Order rasbicting statements mace ‘outside ofthe courtroom is necessary and proper inthis case, Sheppard v. Maxwoll, 384 U.S. 333 (1988), ‘THEREFORE, the Cour ORDERS that during tho pendency ofthis case end Lunt final determination in the tial court, tho prosecuton, all law enforcement, the Defendant, counsel forthe Defendant, potential winesses, expert and other, court 1nd tarily members for both the Defendant ane alleged vitim, shall not ‘make, release or authorize the release of any exra-ucicial statomonts for dissemination by any maane of puble communication relaing to any mattars having to do with this. case. Its the responsiblity of each counsel to ensure that al potentially affected Inclviduals are informed or aware ofthis Order. The contempt powers of this Court wil be used and any violation of this Order vil be appropriately dealt with. ‘SO ORDERED this 28% day of February, 2017, we Bn ‘The Honorable Melanie B. Cross udga, Superior Court Titan Judie Circuit