|
TALLAHASSEE---Media outlets in Florida have won the right to inspect crime scene and autopsy images of 11-year-old murder victim Carlie Brucia but the Second District Court of Appeals has given attorney general Charlie Crist until Monday to ask the Florida Supreme Court to review the decision.
The Attorney General's office filed their motion Wednesday afternoon.
Earlier Wednesday, the 2nd DCA cited what it called a "conflict" between the privacy rights of Carlie's family and the First Amendment rights of others and asked the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict as a "matter of great public importance".
For the second time this week, the appellate court ruled in favor of the media outlets for disclosure saying that "secret evidence is the hallmark of an oppressive regime. It is not a policy generally acceptable in a free society".
The 2nd DCA had ruled in favor of the media's request to see the evidence that was part of the Joseph Smith murder trial but Crist filed to keep the material sealed until his office undertook further maneuvers in an effort to prevent public disclosure of a videotape and photographs of Brucia's body.
Eleven-year-old Carlie Brucia was kidnapped Feb. 1, 2004, in Sarasota as she was walking home from a friend's house. The abduction was captured on videotape by a car wash security camera, showing 39-year-old Joseph Smith confronting her. Her partially naked body was found four days later near a church. The video was broadcast worldwide and led to Smith's arrest when family members and friends recognized him.
Smith was found guilty of the murder last week after a jury deliberated just five hours, convicting Smith of first degree murder, sexual battery of a child less than 12 years of age and kidnapping with infliction of bodily harm and/or with commission of felony on the child. He could receive the death penalty when sentenced on Monday, Nov. 28.
The Attorney General said privacy rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution take priority over the statutes cited by the appeals court when it granted the request to review the photos.
"Even in death, Carlie Brucia has a right to have her privacy protected," said Crist. "Her family does not deserve to be traumatized by the thought of anyone - other than those required to convict her killer - viewing images of her in the condition she was discovered."
The Attorney General said the appeals court's earlier decision would potentially impact the rights of all citizens who have been or will become victims of any crime, if photos of their bodies would be admitted as evidence. This would also apply to the rights of victim's families. The court's decision could affect the state's ability to prosecute crimes if victims object to having such photos entered into evidence for fear they would be viewed and eventually disseminated in newspapers or the internet.
"Florida's Constitution expressly provides a right to privacy, a privilege which the Legislature has determined creates in victims a right to non-disclosure of private images of the victim taken at the crime scene and or during an autopsy," Crist's motion said.
Crist's motion cites the privacy right created by Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, as well as the Dale Earnhardt Law and other statutory privacy protections for victims and their families. The motion asserts that a court may prevent public access to photos and videos depicting the victim, even where the images have been introduced into evidence in the accused attacker's trial.
Crist also argues that DCA decision fails to consider a state law passed in 2003 that prevents the release of tapes and photographs of crime victims younger than 16.
Media attorneys say that the Dale Earnhardt Law doesn't include a ban on photographs presented as evidence at trial.
"Florida's Legislature has made the direct determination that the privacy right inherent in our Constitution provides a basis for exemption of images like the ones herein from the public record," Crist's motion says.
"The State rejects the contention that the exposure of these gruesome images to individuals who are required to view them in connection with their obligation to enforce the law, investigate crimes, prosecute crimes and sit in judgment of the accused is equivalent to exposing the images to the public at large, or that such exposure erodes the privacy privilege expressly established by the Legislature to protect victims from the public display of such images," the motion adds. 11-23-05
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
