Gag order is a miscarriage of justice

Rapoza has also made additional entreaties to speak with the Daily Journal in recent days because he feels his story is not being told to the public in the way he would like. He believes his case may be lumped in with the Scott Peterson double-murder case and that he will be guilty by association. His attorneys have not done a good enough job in relaying that sentiment, he believes, and he wants to share his story with the public directly.

But does that justify issuing a gag order on the case? The gag order Boyarsky and O'Brien are asking for will require complete silence from everyone involved in the trial. That means no one can discuss any detail of the case - from what was said in court to when the next hearing is.

In this county, such orders are extremely rare. In fact, the last one in this county was more than 10 years ago. Since then, there have been a number of more high-profile cases with extreme circumstances and talkative defendants. Donna Anderson, the woman convicted in 2001 of stabbing her son Stephen to death, was very vocal about her case and no gag order was filed. Seti Scanlan, the man who admitted to shooting and killing Alice Martel to death, is very vocal about his case and was interviewed by the San Jose Mercury News. There was never even a discussion of a gag order.

One high-profile case that did receive a gag order is the Scott Peterson double-murder trial because families on both sides of the issue were weighing in with various theories and opinions. The case was being tried in the court of public opinion.

However, the Rapoza case is not getting nearly that level of attention. And so far, the only sentiment expressed is that two attorneys are not doing their job in properly representing their client.

A gag order can only be put into place if a high-profile case with media attention could prevent a defendent from receiving a fair trial. What is ironic is that in this case, the defendent is trying his best to get a fair trial and believes his attorneys are preventing him.

Now, his attorneys are seeking to silence him and his complaints. Doing so is a miscarriage of justice and not only an insult to Rapoza but to the public at large and the tenets of our nation's Constitution.

A temporary gag order was issued yesterday and a hearing is set for July 9. Let's hope Judge Carl Holm makes the right choice and reverses the gag order.

If Rapoza is guilty, he should either go to jail for life or face the death penalty. If he innocent, he should be freed. But until the day that a jury renders its verdict, he should not be silenced.