Feb 16. 2017 12:077M Wo 1391 4 FEB 1.6 2017 DAVID F. BAUMAN, Ps.Cr CARTSTOPHER J. GRAMTCCTONT MONMOUTH COUNTY PROBECUTOR 132 JERSRYVILLE AVENUE FREEHOLD, NEW JERSRY 07728-2374 (732) 431-7160 SUPERIOR COURT OF NBW JERSEY LAW, DIVISION (CRIMINAL) MonHourE comNY ASE NO, 17-0519 CONPLAINY NO. W-2017-041-233 STATE OF NRW JRREEY, ' CRIMINAL ACTION * plaintits, : ‘ORDER SEALING RECORDS LIAM NcATASUBY, : Defendant. ‘hie matter having been brought before this Court on the 16th da of February, 2017, on joint application of Meghan J. Doyle, Aesistant| Nonmouth County Prosecutor, for the State’ of New Jemsey; ane} charles M. Moxdarty, Req., attomey for the defendant, to Seal Record Marked as Sxhibite Duxing the Pretrial Detention Hearing held Februar} 14, 2017, said xecords apeoificatly listed as follows: (a) Recorded Interview of Decouber 6, 2016, of Liam McAtamney; (s) “Revorded Interviews of Pecember 7, 2016, aud February 2, 2017] of Preaton Taylor; {o) . Conseagual Recording of Garuacy 31, 2017 between . bias MoAtasney and A.C; {é) Formal atatemente of A.C:, dated Jamary 24 and February 20, 20171 (e) Neptune City initial reports and arrest reports for Frestos)Feb. 16 2017 12:07 Hoa BS Taylor and Liam MeAtasney; (£) Criminal History Detailed Repart for Liam HaAtasney; and, whe parties having agreed that there ia good cause to aval aaid| records puravant to RB, 1:2-1,,R, 1:36-21, and the Devenber 6, 2026 Order of the New Jersey Suprene Court; and, The parties having agreed to sone.or all of the following bades| to support a "good cause” finding: : (1) The December 6, 2016 Order of the New Jersey Suprene Court] “relaxed and supplemented” R. 1:38-3 (*couxt Records Excluded fron) Public Access”) to exclude from public access *vecords relating to the Pretrial Services Program ... except as followe (a) certain records, such 98 notions or exhibits, the regulte of any wisk assessment] inotrument, shall be made available to the abtomeys of record for the) purposes of .., determining whether pretrial deterition ie appropriate| if the records sought are otherwise obtainable under these Court Rules, stich records will bo wade availeble to the public... the items ddentified ab (a) through (£) above vere offered! as exhibite ca the Gtate'@ motion for pretrial detention, to be consideved eolely fox the purjone of determining whether pretrial] detention of defendant woo appropriate. Said, itens would not otherwise be available to the public undex the court rules. gee R, 1:36-2(b) (2); R, 2:98-3(e) (1). Pursuant to the Deceber 6, 2016 Court! Order, the itens are accewsible to the attomicys of record only) a8 al attr of law, therefore, “good cause* existe’ te’seal them from public] access. (2) Thove nea been intense, pervasive media attention, Loca,Feb 16 2017 12:08PM "ke 1391 PB 6 3 teistate, and national, in chis cage, The United States suprene Court] recognizes that, in cases that arouse intense public interest, vadverse publicity: can endanger the ability of the defendant receive a fair trial.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquae, 443 U. Ct. 2088, 2904 (3979), Our oun Rules of Professional Conduct] 378, 368, 98 PC 3.6, 3.8(f). The Itema identified is appreciate the same.’ See paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are statements of the defendants, some of} which include muneroua, detailed, inoulpatory admisaions. The naturel of the information contained in the atatewanta has the capacity t inglane and prejudice the conmmity against’ the defendants, its widespread publication by the media presents a substantial probability of prejudicing the defendant's right to: fair trial, as hight probativa and natertal evidence in this case would he published by thd nedia for public consumption vell in advance of trial (3), Dekendent’s cage haa not: been presented to a grand jury for] return of an indictment. Tf the cage vere no billed, the defendant’ | character and reputation 1a the commmity would be trreparably harned| by media publication and widespread disseninatiqn of the inculpatory,, provocative discovery itema at issue herein ee (4) Defendant “hag not had the opportunity to contest} admissibility of the aforementioned irema at a trial under the constitution or evidence rules, Media disclosure of defendant’a adnisnions and/or the hearsay contained in the codefendant’s statenent| and/or policd investigative reporte "could influence public opintor| inowlpato against” {] defendant’ and” infor’ potential jurors of information wholly inadmissible at the’ actual trial,” Gannett, supra,Feb 16. 2017 12:08°H No. 1391. P 7 a 443 U8. at 378, $9 8. ct. at 2908, thereby substantially prejudiciag defendant's right to a fair eetal (s) thems (ec) and (d) contain information provided by an| important cooperating witness, A.C. A.C. bas expressed concerns for] hie safety and reltictance about partiolpating in the defendants’ dnvestigation and prosecution, A.C.’a continued cooperation could be! jeopardized by the disclosure and widespread. publication of his| identity and the extent, of he cooperation, given the ‘real potential| for media ‘harassment of hin and possible retaliation againat hin thet} could ensue, [T]he right of courtroom access ig limited by the constitutional right of defendants to a faix rial, and by the needs} of government to obtain just convictions and to preserve the) confidentiality of sensitive information and the identity off informants.” United states v. chagra, 101 .% 1983) (emphaais added) . td 354, 368 (oth Cix,| (6) A defendant's criminal history (Ltem F) ie relevant to al pretrial datention application because it is evidence of danger ‘to the} community; but, it ia imadwaaible, prejudicial, predisposition) evidence on the igaue of ‘the dofendant’/s’ guilt df the changed crime. (7) our courte previously have relied upon the pagoage of timel between a “tide of inherently prejudicial pretrial publicity" and thal defendant's trial to abate the prejudice of the publicity to the jury] ia2, 133-34 (1998) (eiting seate| pool. fice State vy. Wary: Koedatich, 112 Wid, 225, 273-82 (1986), cert, denied, 409 0.8. 1017, 109 8, ct, 613 (1989)). Assumiiig compliancs ‘with the’ apeedy) AL 2116-22, this is 70 Jongex.va viable| trial statute, Ny,Feb. 16. 2017 12:08PH Mo. 1391 PB alternative for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial The Court having considered the nature of the exhibits set forth 4n pavagraphs (a) through (f), and the parties’ joint application for The Court finding disclosure of the above-referenced items willl The Court spectfiesi2y windful of the suprene Court. Orde designating exhibita such ap itemized in paragraphs (a) through {£) as) ze toon ente 16” any of sebevary, 2017, eROERED that tnd Aefondant’'s Pretrial netention tenting held Februmy 14, 2017 4a Heveby GRANTED,vey Pwwrous Fabs 1. 201d 12:272M : No 1992 A 4 ok & cuRIstoriIRR 1 GRANEecroNE MONMOUTH COUNTY PRORECUTOR FEB 16 2017 132 seRspyvruny avaNue BREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY 07720-2374 (79a)4an-7160 DAVID F. BAUMAN, PCr, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY i LAW DIVISION (CRIMINAL) MONMOUTH COUNTY CASE NO. 17-0519 COMPLAINT NO, W~2017-062~133 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ' GRIMIVAL ACTION vlaintige, 1 ORDER SEALING RECORDS v 2 PRESTON TAYLOR, ' Defendant. : Thin'matter having been brought before chia Court on the 16th day] of February, 2017, on joint Application of Meghan J. Doyle, Assiatent Monmouth County Prosecutor, for tho state of Wew Jersey; and John 7; Perrone, meg., attorney for the defendant, to seal Recorad Marked ‘as Extibite During the Pretrial Detention Hearing held Februar; 6, 2017, sasa records apecifically Listed as follove: {a) | Recorded Interviews of December 7, 2016, and February 1, 2017] | of Preston Taylor) (b) Recorded Interview of Decenbor 6, 2016, of Liam MoAtasney; (c) "Consensual Recording of danuary 31, 2017 between Lian} MoAtasney and A.c.; +, dated ganuazy 24, 2017; (4) Formal etatement of A. fe) Noptune City initial reports and arrest reporta for Presvor| Taylor and Liam MaAtaaney;tebe 16 2017 12:27PM Wo. 13925 {f) Cximinal History Detailed Report for Preston Taylor; and, id} ‘The parties having agread that there is good cause to seal records pursuant to R. 112-1, R. 1:38-11, and tha Dacenber 6, 201 Oxder of the New Jexaey Supreme Court, and, Tha porties having agreed to some or all of the following based to! support a ‘good cause” finding: (1) The December 6, 2016 order of the New Jersey supreme court| “relaxed and supplemented” B, 2138-3 (*Couxt Recorda Excluded from! Public Accesa”) to exclude from public access “records relating to thel Protrial Sexvicos’ Progran ... except as follows (a) certain records, | euch sa motions or exhibie: instrument, shall be made available to the attorneys of record for th purposes of .:, determining whethor pretrial detention is appropriate the xeoults of any risk aasessnent| vse AE tile recorde sought are othermise obtainable under these court Rulee, such records will be made available te the public..." The dkena identified at (a) through (g) above were offered ao exhibits on the State’s notion for pretrial detention, to bel considered solely for the puxposs of detarnining whether pretrial @stention of defendant was appropriate. ' suid items would not] otherwise be available to the public under the court rules, gee R, 2138-2 (b) (2); B. 1:38-3(c) (2). Pureuant to the December 6, 2016 court] Order, the items are accessiblo to the attorneye of xecerd only; as al matter Of lav, therefore, “good cause” oxists to geal them from public acces (2) Thera hag been intense, pervasive media attention, local, . The United atates Supreme Court| tristate, and national, in this o:Feb 16. 2017 12:278M : M19 ff ; 3 recognizes that, in cases that arouse intense public interest, “adverae publicity can endanger the ability of the defendant to xeeoive a faix trial.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.3. 368, 378, 99 8. Cr. 2898, 2904 (1979). Our own Rules of Professional conduct| appreciate the same. REC 3.6, 3.8(f), The dtems identified inl Peregrephs (a), (b), and (c) are statements of the defendants, some af| whieh tnclude numerous, detailed, inculpatozy admissions. The naturel ef the Anformtion contained in the statements hae the capacity to ingieme and prejudice tha community against the defendants, ital wideapread publication by the nedla presenta a aubstantial probabi ity| of prejudioing the defendant’e xigit to a fair trial, as hight; probative and matorial evidence in thia case would be published by thel wédia for public consumption well in advance of trial, _ (@) Defendant's case haa not been presented to a grand jury tor| retum of an indictment, If the onse were no billed, the defendant's character, and reputation in the community would be irreparebly haxmed| by media publication and widespread dissemination of the inouipatoy, Provovative discovery itenu at iesue herein, hap “not had “the opportunity" to contest| (4) " Defendant adnisaibiliey of the aforementioned itens at » trial under thal Media disclosure of defendant’ | constitittion or evidence rule! admissions and/or the hearsay contained in the codsfendant’s statemont| and/or police investigative reports “could influence public opinion| against. [) defendant and inform potential juxore of Anculpatory| {nfornation wholly nadsinstbie at the acta extol,” gamete, subea, 443 U8. ab 378, 99 8, Ce, at 2905, thereby substantially prejudioing|Fabs 06. 2017 12526PN, No, 1392 4 defendant's right to a fair trial, (3) Teoma (c) and (a) contain. information provided by anl Amportant ccoperating witneus, A.C. A.C. has exprensed concerns for! hie safety and xeluctance about participating in the defendanta’ invantigstion and proaeaution. A.c./a continued cooperation could bi jeopardized by tho disclosure and widespread publication of tel Adentity and the extent of hip cooperation, given the real potential| for media harassnent of him and possible retaliation sgainat him that! could shove, *(Jhe right ef courtroom access ie limited by thel constitutional right of dofendantu to a fair tzial, and by the needel of government to obtain just convictions ‘and to presexva the eonfidentialicy of sensitive, information and the identity of| informants.” Uniked geates v. Chegra, 701 F.2d 296, 364 (sth ctr. 1963) (emphasis added), (6) A dafendant’s detrital nistosy (item F) ie relevant ta a Pretrial detention application because it is evidence of danger to the conminity, but, dt 4e inadnieaible, prejudicial, prediaposition| evidinca on the Ldcve of the dofentant’s guilt of tho charged oxine. (7)" “ous ecurts ‘Brovioumly Have relied upon the passage of tine batween a “tide of inherently prejudicial pretrial publicity’ and thal defendant's trial to abate the prejudice of the publicity co the jury| Pool, Seo Stage v. Harris, 166 Nut. 122, 133-24 (1998) (esting geavel Ys. Koadatien, 129 Nog. 228, 273-02 (1988), gore. denied, 490 ws, 3027, 109 g. Ct. G13 (1989)). Aseuming compliance with the apecdy| trfal ‘statute, Nu¥.9.A, 2416-22," thie no longer da a viable alternative for safeguarding a defendant's right toa éair triad, Feel1B OT as z8em . No. 1392 8 5 The Court having considered the nature of the exhibita ast forth| im Paxagraphe (a) through (f), and the parties! joint application fox] nd consent to the relief specified herein; and, ‘The Court finding digclosure of the above-referenced items willl ‘ |] Hkely cause © clearly ‘desined and serious injury to, at @ uinimin, defendant and A,c., and that the privacy intaroste of defendant ang| AG. substantially outweigh the genexal presumption that all qourt| Yecords.are open for public {nepaction) and, The Court specifically mindful of the suprene court order| designating exhibita ag itemized in Paragraphs (a) through (6) to be exoluded ‘rom public aco : : ‘ te te on ente (07 any of February, 2017, ORDERED that the Joint Application to Seal Records Marked as Bxhibite During thel 8 Gefendant’s Pretrial Detention Hearing held February 6, 2017 1¢ hereby! GRANTED; itoghap 3 Days Date Asaiatant Prosecut Monmouth County‘SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Pursuant to N.J, Const. Art. VI., sec. 2 par. 3, itis ORDERED that effective January 1, 2017 and until further order, the provisions of Rule 1:38-3 (“Court Records Excluded from Public Access”) of the Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey are relaxed and supplemented such that records relating to the Pretrial Services Program shall be excluded from public access, except as follows: (a) certain records, such as motions or exhibits, the results of any risk assessment instrument, shall be made available to the attomeys of record for the purposes of determining, setting, or modifying conditions of release, determining violations of conditions of release, determining whether pretrial detention is appropriate, and sentencing of the defendant; if the records sought are otherwise obtainable under these Court Rules, such records will be made available to the public; (b) recommendations of release provided by the Pretrial Services Program shall be made available to the attorneys of record; and (c) orders pertaining to conditions of pretrial release or pretrial detention shall be available to the public. ‘The provisions of this order shall remain in effect pending development and adoption of appropriate amendments to Rule 1:38, with the Criminal Practice Committee and Municipal Court Practice Committee to make recommendations in that regard, subject to subsequent review and recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Public Access to Court Records. For the Cour mee a Chief Justice Dated: December 6, 2016