All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a matter I need to take up out of your presence before we call the next witness. Let me ask you to step out to the jury room, please.
The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Counsel, I have received and heard an application from the United States Attorney, Judge Manella, asking the court to take certain precautions if one of the Fiato brothers was called as a witness. I've heard the comments by the real parties in interest, both of whom have no opposition to the application by the United States Attorney. And I see Mr. Mirell is present. I don't see Miss Sager.
My name is Karen Frederiksen. I am here for Miss Sager. She is out of town today.
Good afternoon, your Honor, I will be brief. I'm a lawyer with Davis, Wright and Tremaine and I am here today representing NBC, CBS, ABC and times mirror. We have just caught wind this morning that there is a possible protective order presented to this court concerning Larry and Craig Fiato. We feel several concerns about that protective order. First and foremost we have not been informed of any reasons for treating the testimony of these witnesses in this courtroom differently than any other witnesses. We've learned from the U.S. Attorney's office today that neither of these individuals are former members of a--excuse me--a witness protection program.
Your Honor, excuse me. Based upon the order that the court agreed to with respect to what their status is or isn't, it seems to me inappropriate for counsel on the record to go into that.
Well, she is indicating she has no information. The application by the United States Attorney, though, for the justification is under seal. Proceed.
Your Honor, what we have learned from two sources today, two other media attorneys have learned today from the U.S. Attorney's office just what I've said, that these two individuals are not former members of the witness protection program.
I understand that there may be other concerns as to them. It is also our understanding, and I wanted to point out, your Honor, that both of these individuals have not only been photographed by the media and appeared widely, one of them last night, on TV was on several television programs, that both of them cooperated with ABC, as I think was reflected maybe earlier in the testimony today, in June of 1995, I'm informed from ABC, not only to have their photographs and being photographed on camera at length, but also to extensive interviews. And therefore, it is our belief that whatever interests they may have had about their protection, and again we don't know the detail, the information has been kept from us, that there is no reason not to have the cameras present and treat those as all other witnesses.
Do you have any of that information, any hard evidence from ABC interviews, photographs, anything that would convince the court that these persons are not interested in protecting their identities for or their own safety.
I believe I can get that. I think there is a person in the audience, your Honor, but I need to check with her first, but I have spoken with the individual at ABC directly and they just provided me that information on my way over here.
My only other comment, your Honor, is that if there is any special consideration to be given for these individuals, for reasons again that we are not told about, that there seems to be no compelling interest, I'm sure you will recall Miss Sager's frequent arguments before the court on the first amendment, the need for a compelling interest and the need for any restrictions on media access to being narrowly tailored. First of all, the first protective order as written is certainly overbroad. There are many photographs already out there of these two individuals. The protective order, as written, is not limited to either photos or testimony given during these proceedings. There is no time limitation. And we would, your Honor, conceive of no possible reason at this point why at least an audio feed, again if there is a special concern with these two individuals, and we don't believe that there is, but if there is, that there should at least be audio feed so that their testimony will be heard. The first amendment, we believe, requires this. They are two critical witnesses, from what we understand, if they are allowed to testify, we are not sure that they will be, but if they are, and there is no--there is no reason not to. We also understand besides, your Honor, and I know I don't have hard evidence with me, as to the ABC broadcast, that these individuals have, at least one of them, given interviews in the Boston Globe, other print media and several other broadcast media. It is not just one or two interviews; it is more than that. We are talking about and as recently as last night. I'm told there were several pictures of one of these individual on local networks and it was widely distributed and known.
My understanding, your Honor, the ABC interview was under interview conditions. These individuals were not disguised, I'm told, in any way, nor did they even request to be disguised in fashion. I don't know if the photographs that were broadcast last night were in the context of an interview or if they were merely out on the town, but they have made themselves widely known to the public and to the press. They have not shied away from the media at any turn. And these are not the kind of individuals that are deserving of any special protection and certainly don't present the kind of compelling interest that is necessary in this trial to treat them differently at this point this time.
Yes, your Honor. We have recently received similar information and we would like the opportunity to confirm that information with the Fiato brothers. And based on that, if this information turns out to be true, the government would withdraw the request with respect to the cameras. It would still ask this court to impose substantive restrictions on questioning, but what would withdraw the--
Your Honor, could I just interject one thing? Participated in the interview of Larry Fiato, who is the next expected witness, Larry Fiato indicated, and I have asked if I can put this on the record and I've been informed by the federal lawyers that it is appropriate, he has a job, a very good job, and in our interview with him he did express concern that he doesn't want anything to happen to that job. And so I don't know if perhaps in her efforts to confirm the information that was indicated earlier, perhaps the representative from the United States Attorney's office could also check with Mr. Fiato on that aspect.
All right. Well, then what I would suggest we do is take a 15-minute recess. We can have counsel check with the proposed witnesses. We will see what our status is. And we will make a determination one way or the other.
both of them cooperated with ABC, as I think was reflected maybe earlier in the testimony today, in June of 1995, I'm informed from ABC, not only to have their photographs and being photographed on camera at length, but also to extensive interviews.
They have not shied away from the media at any turn. And these are not the kind of individuals that are deserving of any special protection and certainly don't present the kind of compelling interest that is necessary in this trial to treat them differently at this point this time.
Larry Fiato indicated, and I have asked if I can put this on the record and I've been informed by the federal lawyers that it is appropriate, he has a job, a very good job, and in our interview with him he did express concern that he doesn't want anything to happen to that job.
if this information turns out to be true, the government would withdraw the request with respect to the cameras. It would still ask this court to impose substantive restrictions on questioning.