You are on page 1of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WHITESIDE COUNTY, ILLINOIS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) NICHOLAS T. SHELEY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Case No. 08-CF-283

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO EXTENDED MEDIA COVERAGE OF PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND RESPONSE TO PEOPLE'S OBJECTION TO EXTENDED MEDIA COVERAGE AT TRIAL Now comes Defendant Nicholas T. Sheley, by and through his courtappointed attorney and for his objection to extended media coverage of pretrial proceedings and response to people's objection to extended media coverage at trial states as follows: 1. At the outset, Defendant agrees with the States essential position that

allowing extended media coverage of the pretrial proceedings scheduled on February 24, 2012 and trial scheduled to begin on March 5, 2012 would create pretrial publicity in this cause which would adversely affect the prospective pool of jurors called to serve. 2. Defendants position throughout the pendency of this case has been

that the prospective pool of jurors in Whiteside County have been continually exposed to news accounts containing inflammatory, sensational, and inadmissible information regarding Defendant and his alleged crimes and behavior. As a result of this media coverage, it will be impossible to find an unbiased, untainted pool of

jurors to hear this case. Furthermore, the sheer amount of publicity in this case creates a strong probability that the parties will be unable to find a sufficient number of jurors who have not formed an fixed opinion of Defendant's guilt or individuals who can legitimately put aside everything they have heard about this case and decide Defendant's guilty solely on what has been presented in the course of trial. 3. It appears that State is willing to concede that corrective measures are

necessary to protect against the effect of prejudicial pre-trial publicity and to safeguard Defendants right to a fair trial in this case and other cases pending against Defendant. 4. Defendant agrees with the State's position in its objection, that the

hearing on State's motion regarding other crimes evidence is most akin to a suppression hearing and therefore is not subject to extended media coverage. 5. Defendant further agrees that extended media coverage of the trial in

this case will result in exponentially greater difficulty in picking a fair and impartial jury both in the above-captioned matter as well as the eventual trial in 08-CF-402. 6. Defendant, however, disagrees with the remedy sought with regard to

the trial scheduled to begin on March 5, 2012. 7. Defendant objects to the remedy that the States suggests because it

requires Defendant to compromise his Sixth Amendment right to a public proceeding in order to protect his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an 2

impartial jury free from pre-trial bias and the taint of publicity. 8. Defendant believes that there is a reasonable alternative that will

protect Defendants fair trial rights a change of trial venue. This remedy has the dual benefit of denying none of Defendants Sixth Amendment rights: the right to a fair trial by impartial jury and a right to public proceedings. Such a remedy will still allow the court to permit extended media coverage. 9. Such a remedy recognizes what is implicit in this conversation: The

individuals most interested in the media coverage and most likely to follow it, the individuals most interested in the outcome of hearings and trials, and the individuals most likely to have formed fixed opinions from this coverage, are the same individuals who will be called as potential jurors to sit in judgment in Defendant's trial.

WHEREFORE Defendant Nicholas T. Sheley, by and through his attorneys respectfully requests this court for the following relief: 1. Prohibit extended media coverage of the pre-trial proceedings on

February 24, 2012. 2. Reconsider the courts ruling on Defendants motion to change venue

now that the State concedes that pretrial publicity may adversely affect the prospective pool of jurors called to serve in the case and grant Defendants motion. 3. In the alternative, should the court still not be willing to change the

venue of trial, then the court should prohibit extended media coverage of the trial in the above cause. 4. Provide such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

February 17, 2012

Defendant's Attorney

Jeremy S. Karlin ALCORN KARLIN LLC 313 E. Main Street P.O. Box 1516 Galesburg, Illinois 61402-1516 Tel: (309) 345-0000 Fax: (309) 345-0002 E-Mail: jkarlin@alcornkarlin.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the 17th day of February, 2012, I served a copy of the foregoing instrument upon: By: Gary Spencer Whiteside County State's Attorney Whiteside County Courthouse Morrison, Illinois 61270 Steve Nate William Elward Illinois Attorney General's Office 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 by : U.S. Mail Hand Delivered Certified Mail FAX Overnight Courier Other: E-Mail Michael L. Atterberry Illinois Attorney General's Office 500 South Second Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 Michael Ortiz Media Coordinator KWQC 805 Brady St. Davenport, IA 52803

One of Defendant's Attorneys

You might also like