COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY DOCKET NO. RECEIVED AUG 03 2011 v. “ MAUAA S. DOYLE CLERK (OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL CouRT FORSUFFOLK COUNTY CHARLES DIORIO NORFOLK COUNTY DIVISION OF THE TRIAL COUR! PETITION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO G. L. ¢. 211, §3 Now comes petitioner Charles Diorio and respectfully applies to this Honorable Court for an interlocutory appeal from the findings, rulings, and orders of the Quiney District Court Department, Mark Coven, J. and states as follows: 1) Mr, Diorio requests this Honorable Court prohibit archiving of the recording of his videotaped arraignment and order a hearing on Defendant’s Emergency Motion to 4 Recuse Coven, J. and for Immediate Appointment of Judge.’ 2) This petition raises serious concerns about the administration of and a project known as “OpenCourt,” implemented by Judge Coven in the Quiney District Court. The “OpenCourt” project began on May 2, 2011 and is currently given special access to the Fist Session of the Quincy District Court, broadcasting live internet streams of proceedings inside te courtroom. The “OpenCourt” producers sit a the witness stand with a'camera facing the judge’s bench and dock. “OpenCourt” has access to the Coutt’s microphiones af sidebar, cownsel table, the beich, and the prisoner’s dock, Confidential communications between defendants and couinsel are often intercepted and broadcast sane ‘The Supreme Judicial Court confronts a similar question in the case of Commonwealth v. Norman Bames, No. $J-2011-0265, currently scheduled for argument on August 4, 2011.3) 4) 5) 9) through the video stream, The producers of the project post live blog entries and “Twitter” posts about the proceedings, often referring to defendants in prejudicial terms, linking to relevant news stories about other allegations, and disseminating detailed personal information about defendants, including criminal record (CORI) information. ‘The issues presented in this petition raise issues of prejudice that has resulted to the petitioner and the appearance of bias of Judge Coven in administering the OpenCourt project and making rulings of law and findings of fact on motions requesting relief from the prejudice that results fiom the OpenCourt project. Mr. Diorio is charged in the Quiney Distéict Court in docket number 1156 CR 3548 with counts of armed assault in a dwelling, kidnapping, possession of a firearm without a license, witness intimidation, furnishing a false name, and threat. In docket number 1156 CR 3550, he is charged with being a fugitive fom justice for a California allegation of parole violation. Copies of the complaints are attached hereto, as Exhibit 1. At Mr. Diorio’s arraignment on July 5, 2011, a warrant issued out of the Chelsea District Court for related charges involving allegations ofa shooting and a carjacking, Details about the allegations were not available at the time of the defendant's Quincy District Court arraignment, However, police reports obtained at the dofendant’s July 20 arraignment in Chelsea District Court indicate that there is an identification issue in that { case (See Affidavit of Attorney John Hayes; attached hereto as Exhibit 2). Prior to arraighiment, the defendant moved orally for a nonsuggestive identification procedute, After a brief exchange during which Judge Coven asked the prosecutor if | there was an issic of identification in the Quincy cases, Judge Coven denied the motion | | ‘over defense counsel’s objection. ‘The defendant filed a motion entitled Motion toPreclude Cameras in the Courtroom, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, pursuant to the Fifth, ‘Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments (o the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The motion sought relief based upon the risk of inaccurate, unfairly prejudicial, and untested information that would be disseminated to the public if the arraignment and bail hearings were broadcast, and due to the disparate treatment of alleged victims by the Court, Judge Coven denied this motion without a hearing, over the objection of defense counsel.” 7) Asa ditect result of Judge Coven’s rulings, the defendant waived his right to argue bail at arraignment to prevent unfairly prejudicial information and evidence that would be inadmissible at trial from being broadcest online and archived indefinitely. 8) Nevertheless, after the arraignment, Judge Coven inquired of the prosecutor as to the underlying charge for the fugitive complaint. The prosecutor answered that the defendant ‘was charged in California with forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, and other crimes in California. In fact, the fugitive charge is based upon an allegation of parole violation. 9) After the arraignment, the alleged victim's petition for a restraining order was transferred to a courtroom where the WBUR “OpenCourt” cameras do not have access. The restraining order hearing was not broadcast or archived. 10) On July 18, the defendant filed # motion entitled Defendant's Emergency Motion to Permanently Suspend Archive of Arraignment and Renewed Objection to Broadeast of Arraignment, attached hereto as Exhibit 5, based upon the prejudice to the defendant posed by the archiving of the arraignment, ‘The defendant asserted that the archiving of the defendsint’s irnage and inaccurate and inflammatory information prejudiced his right 2 None of Judge Coven’e rulings on the defendant®s inotions at arraignment aro reflected in the Court's docket, attached hereto as Exhibit 4, 3