High court hears tape squabble
Undisclosed producers argue before the Georgia Supreme Court they should have been allowed to copy murder trial tapes.
Access to a court reporter’s backup audio recordings of a 2001 murder trial fall within a legal gray area — a podcast producer arguing they should have been allowed to record them and the state saying the tapes aren’t official court documents.
Georgia Supreme Court justices on Monday heard arguments concerning whether a motion filed by Undisclosed LLC was the proper way to seek access to the back-up recordings and whether the company should have been allowed by a Floyd County judge to copy the tapes.
The podcast sought to record the tapes from Joey Watkins’ 2001 murder trial as part of an audio series where they examined his case and trial.
Watkins was convicted of shooting and killing Isaac Dawkins, on Jan. 11, 2000, while driving on U.S. 27 near Georgia Highlands College. Watkins is serving a life sentence plus five years in prison on murder, stalking and weapons charges.
Floyd County Superior Court Judge Billy Sparks allowed access to the audio recordings but denied their request to copy the tapes.
Sparks, in his order, said Georgia’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 states court records are public and allows public inspection of the court reporter’s backup recordings, but, Sparks wrote, it does not entitle them to “copies of a court reporter’s backup tapes/recordings.”
The state’s position, argued by Floyd County Assistant District Attorney John McClellan, is that Undisclosed didn’t seek out the recordings in the correct way and even if they had the recordings they aren’t a part of the official court record.
The podcast should have sought a writ of mandamus, which is an order from the court, compelling to the court reporter to release the tapes for the podcast to copy, McClellan told the court.
The audio backup recordings aren’t part of the official court record, McClellan said, and the court did what it could by allowing access to the audio tapes but not allowing copies to be made.
“It’s not the official court record. Once the (written) transcript is prepared that is the official court record,” McClellan said, and not the recording.
Justice David Nahmias said McClellan’s argument is circular.
Nahmias and Justice Britt Grant asked McClellan if there’s a downside or harm to releasing an audio recording of a trial
— even if it has been closed.
“I don’t know there’s a practical harm, your honor,” McClellan said.
Undisclosed LLC, represented by James Cobb, said up until a short time ago no one in the case disputed the tapes were considered official court record.
The podcast was at first allowed access to copy these recordings, Cobb said, but were later told they could listen to them but not copy them. They were then directed by Judge Sparks to file a request citing Rule 21, and did. By allowing the podcast to only review the tapes, rather than record them for publication, Cobb said, the court could create a chilling effect on the public’s right to access documents.