KSHB, others file response to former Marion police chief's video objection

Media organizations throughout Kansas and the Kansas City area joined together to file a response to the request of Gideon Cody, Marion’s former police chief, to ban cameras from court proceedings.

In his objection, which was filed Aug. 20, Cody sought to “banish cameras and other recording devices from his case,” per court documents.

Cody is charged with obstruction for asking witnesses to delete text messages connected to the investigation of the raids on the Marion County Record and the homes of the newspaper’s publishers.

COMPLETE COVERAGE | Marion County Record raid

KSHB joined the filing along with KAKE, KCTV, KCUR, KMBC, KSNW, KWCH, WDAF, Kansas City Beacon, Kansas City Star, Kansas Reflector, Marion County Record, Wichita Beacon and Wichita Eagle.

In the court document, the media entities argued they represent matters of public concern, and in order to do so, it is necessary to “collect both video and still photographic images.”

Stating the case is of “significant public concern,” the media argued limiting their access in the courtroom goes against their “First Amendment right to gather information, as well as the public’s right to receive that information.”

While Cody argued his objection invokes his Sixth Amendment rights, the media said in the court filing — citing Kansas City Star V. Fossey — it cannot be forgotten that the Sixth Amendment still guarantees “public interest in open proceedings and free access to courts in a criminal case.”

The media included a myriad of other examples proving times in which the media was granted access in criminal cases where it was deemed court proceedings should remain open to the public.

READ | Court filing

Subsequently, the media wrote to the precedent of cameras in the courtroom not affecting prejudice against a defendant in their right to a fair trial.

Rule 1001 “recognizes the responsibility of a court to maintain appropriate courtroom decorum, but also emphasizes the need for openness,” per the filing.

The rule further specifies courts should “champion” technology as it provides “enhanced access” and “transparency.”

Cody’s request to ban all cameras “goes far beyond protecting the integrity of the proceedings and gives no regard whatsoever to the goal of access and transparency,” the media outlets wrote in the response.

In summation, the media wrote they believe Cody's request is ironic as he used technology to “go to war with a member of the media.”

“Now, when he is called to at least partially account for his actions, he wants the media to have less access to his proceedings than they would have in any other defendant’s case," the response's conclusion reads. "If there was ever a defendant who was not entitled to special consideration in this regard, it is Gideon Cody. His case should be treated like any other and the routine request for electronic access to the courtroom should be granted within the normal strictures of Rule 1001.”

Cody’s first appearance, which would likely be the first hearing the media's request would apply to, is scheduled for Oct. 7.

—