The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Court weighs gag order in murder case
ATHENS — The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday about a sweeping gag order issued in the slaying of a teacher and former pageant queen.
Ryan Duke, 30, is accused of murdering former teacher Tara Grinstead, 33, in her Ocilla home in 2005. He was arrested in February 2017, when a tipster called the Georgia Bureau of Investigations. Bo Dukes, no relation to Ryan Duke, was charged with concealing a body.
“This gentleman never came up on our radar until the last few days,” GBI Special Agent in Charge J.T. Ricketson told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution after Duke’s arrest.
Five days after Duke’s arrest, Irwin County Superior Court judge Melanie Cross issued a gag order, prohibiting prosecutors, defense attorneys, members of families of both the victim and defendant, and all law enforcement involved in the case from speaking to the media. In March, she narrowed the order to prosecutors, defense attorneys and law enforcement associated with the case.
The order has restricted the flow of information about what happened to the former beauty queen. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News are among the media organizations that have filed legal challenges.
Derek Bauer, representing WXIA TV, told the court on Tuesday that it violates the First Amendment, and that there were “lots of other remedies” that should have been considered.
Attorney Paul Bowden, representing Duke, said the gag order should be upheld because the case has one of the largest case files in GBI history, there has been 11 years of media coverage, and the murder happened in a small jurisdiction, where his client’s right to a fair trial could be hindered. He also suggested that court coverage of his client in prison attire hindered his right to a fair trial.
Bauer disagreed, citing the Tex McIver murder case in Atlanta. McIver, who is accused of killing his wife, appeared in media coverage in prison garb.
Supreme Court justices pressed Bowden on if there was evidence media coverage of the case would hinder his client’s right to a fair trial, and if there was evidence that trial participants disseminated anything to the media that was not already in the public record.