Good afternoon,

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge ruled today on several motions filed in the Joseph Duncan sentencing case by regional news media, led by The Spokesman-Review.

In his first rulings of the day, the judge ordered the unsealing of several documents previously closed to public scutiny. He denied access to others, including the one document most sought by the media -- the results of Duncan's mental evaluation which prompted the judge to allow Duncan to represent himself in court.

Here is a link to that story by our Boise reporter, Betsy Russell.

In his later rulings, the judge agreed to let the press see the video evidence presented to the jury.

But he refused to allow the press or public to observe victim Shasta Groene's testimony, even from a remote location.

Here is a link to Betsy's later report.

The Spokesman will appeal that ruling as soon as possible, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the judge.

I've written about these access issues before. And I know many in the community don't know what purpose could be served by having Shasta's testimony open to the press and public. They are properly concerned about creating yet another Shasta spectacle, about re-victimizing the child.

Our Assistant Managing Editor for Local News, Carla Savalli, offers the following explanation.

The reprehensible nature of Joseph Duncan aside, we cannot forget that he is facing the death penalty. A democratic society cannot allow deliberations of that magnitude to be conducted in secret.

Additionally, we cannot allow the torment of Shasta Groene to impact our ability to explore the complex legal issues of this case. No media outlet - including The Spokesman-Review - wants to put Shasta through any more duress than she will already endure, but as the public's representative, the newspaper's obligation is to help explain and illuminate the constitutional rights of everyone.

If Duncan is spared the death penalty, the public is going to want to know what happened in the courtroom to cause the jury's decision. If he is sentenced to die, the public is going to want to know the same thing. The only way to answer either question is to be in the courtroom along with the jury.

The newspaper and other media outlets all agree that Shasta's testimony should not be recorded or broadcast. We have agreed to watch from a remote location via closed circuit TV.

And we think federal policy as well as law mandates an open process. But it will be up to the appeals court to determine if our position is correct.

If you were in our postion, what would you do? Should Shasta Groene's testimony be viewed by the press?

Steve