GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. —
Brooklynne Davis, accused of abusing her 19-month-old daughter who later died, waived her right to a preliminary hearing and an appearance in court Tuesday. Her case is now bound over to the circuit court.
But her attorney had another request.
He said statements made by officials surrounding the case, including a 911 call made public to the media, could stop Davis from having a fair trial.
The attorney specifically called out Grand Rapids Police Chief Eric Winstrom and the Kent County Medical Examiner.
“The problem with that is, is that, for example, my social workers, [Grand Rapids Police Chief] Eric Winstrom, the rest of the Grand Rapids Police Department, the [Kent County] Medical Examiner, who also made some very odd statements outside of his ability to do so, they're not governed by 3.6,” he said. “They're not governed by anything else. And that's the problem that we have here, and that's really the problem we're looking now.”
3.6 refers to the American Bar Association Rule 3.6, which bars a lawyer from making a statement that could be disseminated to the public and influence a trial. The attorney did acknowledge that other entities are not barred from speaking by Rule 3.6 but asked for the judge to make an exception.
“What I'm asking is for an order, because, therefore, we would have a remedy if these parties continue to make statements, they're prejudicial, they're quite frankly, they're inflammatory, they're not accurate, they're not true, and they're inflicting prejudice on my client’s right to fair trial,” he said.
He said witnesses will be able to make their statements in the courtroom, and that media will still be able to get information.
“This is not an impingement on anybody's First Amendment rights. This is not an impingement on the right to free presses. They're all here. They'll have a right to come into this courtroom to address things with the proper words for the court,” he said.“We just want it fair and proud. That's it. I think that we deserve that. I think constitutionally, we actually have absolute right to that. Miss Davis has that absolute right. We're simply asking for that. My and again, all parties, us included, we just want everybody on the same playing field.”
The prosecutor said the people feel that a reminder is necessary and sufficient and that anything beyond that is not necessary.
The judge took issue with the motion, saying there are jurisdictional issues. He said since the case is bound over to the circuit court after the waived preliminary hearing, it would be up to that court to decide.
He also said the motion sounds like a gag order, and that witnesses are not bound by Rule 3.6.
He said all parties were not taking any intentional action to prevent Davis from having a fair trial and denied the motion.
Davis’ case will now head to trial in the circuit court.