DISTRICT COURT

ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO

Court Address:
Arapahoe County Justice Center
7325 south Potomac Street
Centennial, CO 80112

Plaintiff(s):
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

v.
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Defendant(s):
AARON DUANE THOMPSON.

Case No. 07CR1483

Division: 401

DECORUM ORDER
ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE
ORDER EXTENDING ORDER OF MAY 17, 2007, ON PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the hearing on July 20, 2009, on the
Request for Expanded Media Coverage (hereinafter “EMC”). The Court has reviewed the
respective pleadings filed on issues involving EMC by the Defendant, by the People and by the
Denver Media Group (hereinafter “DMG”). The Court has also reviewed applicable authority,
the Court’s file and has heard argument by all counsel, and oral statements by Mr. Carlos Illescas
on behalf of the Denver Post, and Ms. Catherine Tsai of the Associated Press. The Court is fully
advised.

This case has garnered significant media attention since the police were called to the
Thompson residence in November 2005. This attention has been the subject of litigation in
regards to the ability to select an impartial jury that has not been exposed to and/or prejudiced by
the media reports. This Court previously denied requests for Expanded Media Coverage on May
17, 2007, and granted requests made on January 8, 2008, and May 21, 2008, for the Defendant’s
arraignment.

The Defendant was indicted on May 16, 2007, on sixty counts, including child abuse
resulting in death, conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, false reporting,
eighteen counts of child abuse and multiple counts of second degree assault. There are eight
children named as victims in those counts. It is anticipated that six of those children (albeit two
of them are no longer minors) will testify at trial. In previous hearings testimony was adduced
about the negative impact this case has had on their lives, and about the trauma the children will
suffer as a result of having to testify in open court about the relevant events. Further, the People
assert that the mere presence of cameras and even any audio recording device in the courtroom is
likely to inhibit the minor children’s ability to testify.

1
 The Defendant asserts his concerns about receiving a fair trial. The intense media
coverage led the Defendant to express concerns about the ability to seat a venire that has not
been tainted by the coverage, and argues that audio and video taping of the trial would turn this
case from one of appropriate public interest to a cause celebre.

DMG seeks expanded media coverage in this case for the trial of the Defendant
scheduled to commence on August 7, 2009, after four days of jury selection. DMG asserts that
there is strong public interest in this case and that only through video and audio taping the trial
can the public be educated about our system of justice and the inner workings of a trial. DMG
asserts that video and audio taping the trial is the only mechanism for assuring a complete and
accurate portrayal of the trial. Finally, DMG assures the Court that the mechanisms in place in
Canon 3A(8)(e), limiting the ways in which the trial is covered, ensure that the trial could not
turn into a media production.

Canon 3A(8)(b) of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct provides the standard for
authorizing extended media coverage. In determining whether expanded media coverage should
be permitted, a judge shall consider the following factors:

1. Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that expanded media coverage would interfere
with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.
2. Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that expanded media coverage would unduly
detract from the solemnity, decorum, and dignity of the Court: and
3. Whether expanded media coverage would create adverse effects that would be greater
than those caused by traditional media coverage.

It is axiomatic that the rights of the defendant to a fair trial are the highest priority of the
Court: “No right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial.” Press-Enterprise Co.
V. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984). The mere presence of a camera in a courtroom,
however, does not per se violate a defendant’s Due Process rights. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S.
560 (1981). Existing authority makes it clear that, while the Court must take great care to grant
public access to criminal proceedings, the issue of “public access” is not identical to EMC.
Simply put, there is no constitutional right to use of cameras or audio-transmitting devices. The
First Amendment provides for a right to attend trial, “rather than a license allowing cameras or
tape-recorders into the courthouse….” United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir.
1985). The rights of the press to access a criminal proceeding are “no greater than those of any
other member of the public.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 609 (1978).

While the Court has been given discretionary authority to allow EMC, there is no
presumption in favor of EMC. People v. Weighard, 727 P.2d 383 (Colo.App. 1986). Instead,
this Court must balance the impact of such coverage not only against those important rights held
by a criminal defendant, but also against the rights of the victims in this case. Only after all of
these respective rights and concerns have been addressed does this Court ultimately consider its
own interests in the case, which involve the decorum and dignity of the Court’s proceedings.
While media coverage in courtroom has become nearly commonplace, there are unique facts and
circumstances in this case which require careful scrutiny.

2
 The Court is not convinced that there is an overriding purpose that justifies the admission of
cameras in the courtroom in this case. Any such purpose is equally served (as it has been for
decades before Canon 3A(8) was adopted) by media accurately reporting the occurrences of the
day during any given proceeding. The legitimate concerns that Defendant has raised about his
ability to receive a fair trial resonate with this Court. This Court concludes that there is some
potential that certain portions of these proceedings may be unfairly sensationalized and that
inaccurate information will be provided to members of the public. This increases the risk of
interfering with a fair trial and therefore justifies placing restrictions on expanded media
coverage. Additionally, the adverse effects of EMC would in all likelihood be greater on the
victims in this case than the adverse effects caused by traditional media coverage.

After consideration of all the varied interests in this case, the Court believes that the
overriding interests of conducting a fair trial, and ensuring the decorum of court proceedings
require that expanded media coverage be permitted in a limited fashion only. Finding
insufficient reason to allow the EMC in full, the Court will permit EMC by video, still
photography and audio taping only during the opening statements, closing arguments, the taking
of the verdict and any sentencing that may occur as a result of any verdicts of guilty.

This Court will require strict adherence to the parameters outlined in Canon 3A(8) of the
Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. As a reminder to the media, the Court highlights the
following limitations of expanded media coverage:

c) Limitations on Expanded Media Coverage. Notwithstanding this authorization to conduct limited

expanded media coverage, there shall be no:
(III) Audio recording or “zoom” close-up photography of bench conferences;
(IV) Audio recording or close-up photography of communications between counsel and client or
co-counsel;
(V) Expanded media coverage of in camera hearings;
(VI) Close-up photography of members of the jury.

Thus this Order only authorizes expanded media coverage for the opening statements, closing
arguments, return of the verdict and any sentencing that might occur of the defendant, with the full
compliance of all applicable restrictions.

d) Authority to Impose Restrictions on Expanded Media Coverage. A judge may restrict or limit
expanded media coverage as may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the court or to protect the
parties, witnesses, or jurors. A judge may terminate or suspend expanded media coverage at any
time upon making findings of fact that: (1) rules established under this Canon or additional rules
imposed by the judge have been violated; or (2) substantial rights of individual participants or
rights to a fair trial will be prejudiced by such coverage if it is allowed to continue.

Thus the expanded media coverage granted in part for portions of the trial is subject to revocation
by this Court.

This Court’s Conditions for Coverage. Expanded media coverage shall be conducted only under the
following conditions. The Court maintains final approval of all arrangements:

Equipment Limitations.
3
1. Video. The media shall be given access to the courtroom, in a location as designated by the
Court and DMG shall be responsible for pooling pursuant to the arrangements outlined below.
There shall be only one such camera in the courtroom from which the proceedings may be
viewed. Only one person shall be permitted to operate the one videotape, television, or motion
picture camera. The camera operator may use a tripod, but shall not change location while
Court is in session.

2. Audio. Audio recording shall be permitted in the courtroom at the same times as video
recording.

3. Still Cameras. There shall be no more than one camera and can only be used under the same
limitations as video and audio recording. Only one person at a time shall be permitted to
operate the camera which shall make as little noise as possible, preferably utilizing a silent
shutter or camera muffler. The still photographer may use a tripod, but shall not change
location while Court is in session.

4. Lighting. No movie lights, flash attachments, or sudden lighting changes shall be permitted.
No modification or addition of lighting equipment shall be allowed.

5. Operating Signals. No visible or audible light or signal (tally light) shall be used on any
equipment.

6. Sketch Artist. The court takes no position on the use of sketch artists within the courtroom for
the duration of the trial, but orders that no image or depiction of any kind will be allowed as to
any juror or any child witness.

Pooling Arrangements.
The media shall be solely responsible for designating one media representative to conduct each
of the categories of expanded media coverage listed above, and for arranging an open and
impartial distribution scheme with a distribution point located outside of the Courthouse. If no
agreement can be reached on either of these matters, there shall be no expanded media coverage of
that type. Neither judges nor other Court personnel shall be called upon to resolve any disputes
concerning pooling arrangements.

Media Representatives.
The media shall be restricted to the last two rows of the gallery in the courtroom. While seated
in that designated area, members of the press shall be allowed to use their laptops and other
portable electronic devices for the purposes of note-taking. Any laptop or other portable device
must have any available lens and microphone disabled. The Court expressly prohibits emailing,
blogging, tweeting, and/or other methods of live streaming from the courtroom while court is in
session. This Order is not intended to prohibit such communication by members of the media who
are present from making such contacts outside of the courtroom during breaks in the proceedings.

Persons conducting expanded media coverage shall handle themselves in a manner consistent
with the decorum and dignity of the Courtroom. The following practices shall apply:

1. Equipment employed to provide expanded media coverage shall be positioned and operated so
as to minimize any distraction;
4
 2. Identifying marks, call letters, logos, symbols, and legends shall be concealed on all
equipment. Persons operating such equipment shall not wear clothing bearing any such
identifying information; and

3. No equipment used to provide expanded media coverage shall be placed in, or removed from,
the courtroom while Court is in session.

The Court further Orders that the fourth floor hallways shall not be utilized by any person to
conduct an interview of any person during the hours of 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., in order to
minimize the disruption to this and other courtrooms conducting business during those hours. The
same Order applies to the presence of cameras on the fourth floor (with the exception of cameras
in the courtroom as outlined previously).

No person, whether a media representative or lay person, shall capture any image by any
means of any child witness in any location within the Arapahoe County Justice Center.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART DMG’s
request for expanded media coverage for the defendant’s trial, scheduled to commence with
opening statements on Friday, August 7, 2009, subject to the terms and conditions of Canon
3A(8) of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct and this Order.
FURTHER, this Court orders the Order to Limit Pre-trial Publicity, dated May 17, 2007, is
extended to include the duration of the trial. The gag order therefore remains in full force and
effect.

Done this 24th day of July, 2009.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________
Valeria N. Spencer
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

cc: All Counsel of Record

Media Representatives (through designated counsel)