Yolo judge bars defendants, lawyers from public comments in Esparto fireworks case
The seven men indicted in connection with the deadly Esparto fireworks explosion and their attorneys may not speak publicly about the case, a Yolo County judge ruled last week.
“Without a protective order,” Judge Daniel P. Maguire wrote in his decision, “it seems quite likely that the public debate between the parties will continue and intensify as the case moves towards trial.”
Yolo County prosecutors requested the pretrial publicity protective order on May 8, and the matter was discussed during a June 1 hearing. Maguire’s ruling stopped short of what prosecutors wanted, but it restricts the defendants and their lawyers from speaking publicly about the case.
The judge based his decision on a May 19 filing from the county that cited a news article quoting two defense attorneys working on the case. Attorneys for defendants Jack Lee, longtime operations manager for Devastating Pyrotechnics, the fireworks company at the center of the case, and Kenneth Chee, Devastating Pyrotechnics’ CEO, told the San Francisco Standard that their clients could not be charged with murder due to a recent California Supreme Court ruling.
The high-profile nature of the case could make it difficult to find an impartial jury in a county the size of Yolo, Maguire found. Therefore, he ruled, the defense’s public statements could “compromise trial integrity.”
When the motion was heard, an attorney for Sam Machado, the former Yolo County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant who owns the Esparto property, argued that defense attorneys should be allowed to make public statements in a high-profile case to protect their clients from outside publicity that could prejudice a jury.
Defense attorneys also argued that the prosecution forced their hand when they announced the indictments in a packed press conference, shaping public opinion before a single hearing occurred. They said the press conference included inaccuracies about the charges and the process through which grand jury indictment process. Maguire did not weigh in on that argument, except to say that the court “has an independent duty to ensure a fair trial.”
Maguire did not grant the prosecution’s request in full. He did not order nonparties to limit their public statements because the prosecution did not submit evidence justifying such a restriction. That means the order does not cover the victims’ families or the two state agencies involved in the Esparto investigation, Cal Fire and Cal-OSHA.
Maguire ruled that the defendants and their attorneys cannot make statements outside court hearings about the merits of the case, the arguments or evidence submitted to the court, or the investigation into the explosion. The ruling also bars them from speaking publicly about the character of any defendant or victim, the defendants’ relationships to one another, or their relationships to the victims.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 1, one year to the date of the explosion, when the parties will discuss the privilege screen procedure that will govern how evidence is identified and shared among the parties.
