There is an interesting development in the case of North Augusta (S.C.) officer Justin Craven in the alleged murder of 68-year-old Ernest Satterwhite. Despite public disclosure laws, the police are refusing to release the videotape because they describe it as shocking and disturbing. Some would argue that that is precisely why it should be available to the public.
Craven tried to pull over Satterwhite for suspected DUI and followed him home after Satterwhite refused to pull over. However, the dashboard camera reportedly captured Craven running up to Satterwhite’s car on his driveway and fired several shots through the closed door. While he said that Satterwhite tried to grab his gun, prosecutors concluded otherwise and charged him. However, he was not charged with murder. The grand jury did not return a voluntary manslaughter charges (which would have come with a potential 30 year sentence). He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of misconduct in office and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle.
SLED Chief Mark Keel said that releasing the video would hamper the officer’s right to a fair trial. Accordingly, freedom of information requests were denied. Yet, agencies are supposed to give specific reasons for withholding videotape like undermining efforts to arrest a suspect. One of those reasons is generally not embarrassing or public reaction.
At the same time, the city reached a $1.2 million settlement with the family but required them to sign an agreement not to disclose it to anyone else.
For his part, Solicitor Donnie Myers says that he will not release the film until after it is used in court because “the premature release of the video to be used at trial … would be harmful, unfairly prejudice the pre-trial opinions of potential jurors, prejudicial to the defendant and not in the interest of justice.”
This could make for an interesting challenge by the media. Any court or prosecutor could refuse virtually any videotape out of concern for its influence on a trial. How would such an exception be measured? In the meantime, as a matter of great public importance, the community would be denied the clearest evidence of the alleged misconduct of its police department.
What do you think?
Source: Big Story
Nope. They release what they want to release. Period.
In this very case the Sheriff’s Department released a report claiming the victim tried to grab the officer’s gun. And that wasn’t all.
They also released police records detailing the 68 year-old great-grandfather’s traffic arrests.
Now why would someone actually concerned about justice and a fair trial release information that dirties up the victim and exonerates the killer? And how could they then use that excuse to refuse to release objective evidence of the killing and expect any thinking person to buy into it?
Does the name Brian Moore ring a bell?
No? Huh. Brian Moore is the name of the 25 year old NYPD police officer who was shot to death by a man named Demetrius Blackwell. Moore died yesterday. Blackwell shot him in the face for no reason other than being asked what was in his waistband.
Seems like the murder of a police officer isn’t a topic of interest on this blog.
When evidence is part of an ongoing judicial proceeding it is routinely withheld for the reasons stated by the solicitor. Wisconsin has good open records laws. I can get reports, statements, photos, videos, 911 tapes, etc. However, if they are part of an ongoing criminal investigation or litigation, they are not open records until the case has been adjudicated. I think cop hatin’ has hurt JT’s thought process.
For his part, Solicitor Donnie Myers says that he will not release the film until after it is used in court because “the premature release of the video to be used at trial … would be harmful, unfairly prejudice the pre-trial opinions of potential jurors, prejudicial to the defendant and not in the interest of justice.”
Broadcast the trial, and let everyone see the video at the same time.
I think that the police in our country are out of control, and unmoored from civil society.
If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny. These cops are the most dangerous mix of mayhem and buffoonery there is. Their arguments approach the level of racist jokes fifty years ago, “Well mam, we’ll charge the young black man you hit, sticking through your windscreen, with breaking and entering; nothing to worry about.” Let’s hope that this behavior will be seen in the same light.
Nonsense. Prejudicial information is released all the time before trial, usually by police and prosecutors. And we all know if the shooting was reversed, the video would have been released day one.
We have been offered two different reasons for withholding the video. The police dept is withholding it because it is “shocking and disturbing.” That is obviously an insufficient reason.
The prosecutor is refusing to release it because to do so would poison the pool of potential jurors and therefore infringe upon the defendants right to a fair trial. I believe this is acceptable. A defendants right to a fair trial outweighs the public’s immediate need to know. The public will get to see the video – after the jurors have viewed it.
“the premature release of the video to be used at trial … would be harmful, unfairly prejudice the pre-trial opinions of potential jurors, prejudicial to the defendant and not in the interest of justice.”
Yet police sure do seem to release negative information about the victims in these cases quickly. Because they’re not trying to influence public opinion at all when they splash unrelated criminal histories all over the headlines.
LaSalle, Illinois sheriff’s dept did the same thing…except that their video had already been seen!! And in fact they refused to release ANY info except the arrest report.
Looks like the FOIA is useless….
Wait! 68 is elderly?!
Whatever the public disclosure statutory requirements are in that state is what should be followed by the department and the prosecutor.
I can understand the Judge’s consideration of the film being “evidence” entered into a criminal case… What astounds me is that the “evidence” itself shows the true extent of the alleged crime of murder, according to what is being reported. And yet, the officer isn’t being charged to the full extent of the law. Let’s see that happen with regular folk… oh, forgot, the regular folk are the ones getting shot in their own driveways. I hope they release the tape to the public after the trial.
Annie,
You can kill a man on film and not be found guilty… IF you have a badge.
So it seems to be. Only in America, as they say.
Reblogged this on veritasusa.
It would seem to me that it was the conduct of the officer that caused embarrassment to the police department not the video. It is amazing the police departments think nothing of allowing “reality show” ride alongs or publishing mug shots but this video which the public clear has a right to see was with held.
As to the fair trial question, again videos of other perpetrators have been shown before trials why is this video any different except that the perpetrator is a police officer. It would seem it was withheld so that the public would not protest the undercharging in this case. That is, to protect the prosecutor from public scrutiny.
The gag order related to the settlement is an outrage and courts should refuse to allow this kind of agreement to be made.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the family to settle, with the city, after the criminal proceedings?
Is a 68 year old man considered elderly? May not be a spring chicken, but ELDERLY?
bam bam – you are correct. They have changed the designation of those of us who are older. I am either late middle age or early old age and I am older than this gentleman. You have to get into your 80s to elderly.
Given all the riots that have gone on lately, I can see their point. If I were them, I would fight it as much as Obama fights subpoenas.
I think that our nation needs to have a massive demonstration until these cops start getting convicted when they murder unarmed citizens. When are all the deceased going to have their day in court?