DA in Esparto fireworks case asks for gag order to stop defense public comments

The Yolo County District Attorney has asked a judge to impose a gag order in the Esparto fireworks case that would prohibit attorneys of record and prospective witnesses from making public statements about the proceedings.

Defense attorneys said they plan to fight the request at a scheduled June 1 hearing before Superior Court of Yolo County Judge Daniel Maguire.

Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig states in a motion filed May 15 that suppressing on comments is necessary because of the seriousness of the crimes, the intense interest and the potential consequences.

“In this matter, the nature of the crimes is both grave and serious, and the level of community and media interest at both local and national levels is extremely high,” he writes. “...Consistent with the furtherance of justice, a narrowly tailored Pretrial Publicity Protective Order should be issued by this Court to protect the integrity of the case and to prevent potential prejudice.”

Legal and First Amendment experts said gag orders are unusual but not unheard of in high-profile cases.

“In typical criminal cases they are rare,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Justice Kennedy Professor of Law at the McGeorge School of Law. “It is the high-profile cases, where what someone says could travel to potential or actual jurors, that they are more common.”

Jacobs said judges who grant such requests often narrow them significantly. “They modify it to make it narrower than requested and pin-pointed to protect free speech as much as possible and zero in on prohibiting speech that has clear potential to undermine a fair trial,” she said.

The recent court ruling

Seven people died in the warehouse blast July 1, 2025 and eight people were indicted in April; five have been charged with seven counts of murder. Among those charged are Kenneth Chee, the owner of Devastating Fireworks, which were stored in the facility.

In support of the request, the DA filed an affidavit citing comments two defense attorneys made last month to the San Francisco Standard, in which they claimed a recent California Supreme Court ruling effectively undermined the murder charges against their clients. The filing said the comments “appear to mischaracterize the prosecution and the law.”

The court ruled in the People v. Richard Curtis Morris Jr. that a defendant charged with murder must have a direct role in the killing — “the nonkiller aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just the underlying felony.”

Legal experts said the ruling is significant and will trigger hundreds of appeals statewide — but it applies only to first-degree murder. Five defendants in the Esparto case are charged with second-degree murder, and the justices were explicit that their decision “does not apply to other murderers such as second degree murderers.”

Despite that, Douglas Horngrad, who represents Chee, told the San Francisco Standard: “This ruling supports the defense’s position, in Mr. Chee’s case, that there is an insufficient showing to support a felony murder charge.” Rob Gorman, who represents defendant Jack Lee, operations manager for Devastating Fireworks, called it an “earth-shattering decision” that rendered the murder charges no longer relevant.

‘Attempt to put a muzzle on us’

In an interview with The Bee, Gorman defended his comments. “My client and his family were on the other side of the country when that explosion occurred,” he said. “To me the Morris case makes clear that if you’re not involved in the lethal event, you can’t be charged with murder. Now, the prosecution may argue that I’m wrong. But from my perspective, I see Morris as being helpful in defining how he can or cannot be charged with murder.”

Michael Vitello, a law professor at McGeorge School of Law, disagreed.

“The defense’s interpretation is clearly inaccurate,” he said. “In second degree cases, indifference to human life can create murder, and that’s clearly the theory in the Esparto case.”

The competing interpretations of the Morris ruling are now at the center of a broader battle — over who gets to speak publicly about one of the most significant criminal cases in Yolo County history.

The proposed order would also extend to employees of Cal Fire and Cal-OSHA, two state agencies that have played prominent roles in the investigation — meaning their employees could be formally prohibited from discussing the case publicly if the judge signs the order as written.

The DA’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

“It’s not surprising to me that the prosecution wants a gag order,” Gorman said. “I’m sure they want that. If somebody googles Esparto fireworks explosion, the only thing they’ll see is the live copter footage of the explosion from the air, and the prosecutor’s press conference that went on for 30 or 40 minutes, talking about how this is the biggest case ever in Yolo County, a million pounds of explosives. Their gag order seems to me an attempt to put a muzzle on us so we can’t talk about this case.”

Britt Imes, Chief Deputy District Attorney in San Bernardino County and committee chair for both homicide and capital litigation issues with the California District Attorneys Association, said the defense attorneys’ comments strengthen the DA’s case for a gag order.

“People have the right to go out in public and say whatever they want,” he said. “A defense attorney can vigorously defend his client, both in court and in the media, especially if there has been media coverage that somehow calls into question their client’s character or culpability. However, the rule of professional conduct is that lawyers cannot misstate facts or law. They cannot make statements that they know or reasonably should know could materially affect the pending litigation.”