Tomorrow, an important issue will be considered in Lake County Superior Court. On Friday, April 24 Lake County Deputy District Attorney John Langan filed a request for a protective order for the purpose of limiting disclosures concerning the Bismarck Dinius case. Dinius is facing vehicular manslaughter charges. The date for the scheduled consideration of the order is May 8.
Protective order, in this case, is the legalese term for what is commonly referred to as a gag order. Protective sounds more pleasant, but gag really describes the order more clearly. Being gagged creates a clearer mental picture than protected does.
Ordinarily, gag orders are requested by a defendant”s attorney in an effort to guarantee the defendant”s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. But, in this case, it isn”t the attorney for Bismarck Dinius who requested the protective order so that media coverage of the trial would not possibly have an adverse effect on his client”s chances. Instead, it”s the prosecution that believes that the community”s First Amendment right of freedom of the press should be infringed upon.
There probably are situations in which a judge should grant the request for a gag order. Sometimes a judge will issue a gag order on his own, without there having been a request made. Regardless, there must be undeniable evidence that case publicity will make it impossible to hold a fair trial before a gag order is issued. We do not believe that the Bismarck Dinius case is such a situation.
It has been more than three years since the boating accident, from which the charges were derived, took place. There is probably not an adult in Lake County who isn”t aware of the case. Many have followed the news of the accident and subsequent case in this newspaper, other newspapers, on regional television and on the Internet. It just doesn”t make any sense to gag the media at this point in the proceedings.
When the judge considers Langan”s protective order request he will have a number of less freedom squelching options than to gag the media. He can arrive at the same outcome, a fair trial, by carefully overseeing the jury selection process to guarantee an impartial jury, provide stern warnings to the jury to avoid news reports and, if he deems it necessary, he can order a change of venue and move the trial to another location.
We hope the judge will choose any option other than denying the public its First Amendment right to a free press.
