VALDOSTA — Numerous media outlets, including The Valdosta Daily Times, are appealing a judge’s gag order in the Tara Grinstead murder case, arguing that the order is far too broad and infringes on First Amendment rights.

According to Times’ editor Jim Zachary, the Valdosta newspaper, along with sister papers the Tifton Gazette and Moultrie Observer, has joined The Telegraph (Macon) by enlisting the services of the state’s leading First Amendment Attorney, David E. Hudson, in opposing the gag order. The order, issued by Tifton Superior Court Judge Melanie Cross, suggests extensive media coverage could taint the jury pool. 

In the Times’ motion, Hudson said extensive coverage of a case does not equate to pre-trial prejudice against the defendant, as the court suggested in the gag order.

“The Georgia Supreme Court has held in unmistakeable language that ‘a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial is not placed in clear and present danger by media coverage of pre-trial hearings that provide the public with accurate, responsible, non-inflammatory reports of the matters raised in those hearings: pre-trial publicity, even pervasive, adverse publicity, does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial.’ Rockdale Citizen Publ. Co. v. State,” Hudson said in the motion.

Hudson added that if any pre-trial publicity actually did taint the jury pool, “the remedy is always a change of venue.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution and WSB-TV (channel 2) filed a motion March 2 asking the court to “reconsider or clarify” the gag order issued Feb. 28 by Judge Cross, which forbids anyone involved in the case from giving statements to the media.

The Associated Press joined that “motion to intervene” March 3, saying the gag order significantly hinders the AP from reporting on the case and keeping the public “appropriately informed about this important investigation and prosecution.”

The motion says because the gag order is so broad, it potentially prevents law enforcement from giving “even the most basic information” about the case, prevents Grinstead’s friends and family from discussing her in any way, and keeps the friends and family of Ryan Alexander Duke — the man charged with Grinstead’s murder — from asserting his innocence.

“Entered without notice or hearing, the order sweeps far too broadly to comply with First Amendment rights,” the motion says. “Additionally, the order is being interpreted by the clerk’s office as restricting access to court records in this case, which also renders it in conflict with basic constitutional principles.

“The order should be reconsidered by the court immediately.”

The gag order came only days after Duke, 33, was arrested and charged with Grinstead’s murder, more than 11 years after Grinstead vanished from her hometown of Ocilla.

The case, left largely dormant in the media for years, sparked a firestorm of new coverage in the wake of the arrest. The second arrest of Bo Dukes, Ryan Duke’s former classmate, as well as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s search for Grinstead’s remains in a Fitzgerald pecan orchard, added to the swelling public interest and media fervor.

In the gag order, the court said “because this case is high profile and has generated extensive media coverage,” Duke’s right to a fair trial may be impeded by statements made outside the courtroom, making the gag order “necessary and proper in this case.”

The order means everyone involved in the case — law enforcement, attorneys, court personnel, potential witnesses, Duke, his family and Grinstead’s family — cannot speak on “any matters having to do with this case” until the case comes to an end in trial court.

In the motion filed by the media outlets, their attorneys argue that the court has no evidence of prejudice against Duke to support the gag order.

“It is well-established that publicity alone is not a basis for a trial court to take the extraordinary step of trying to stifle informed public discussion or reporting on a case. … As a fundamental matter, speculation of future prejudice is simply insufficient under the law,” the motion says.

The motion goes on to say that the guarantee of public access to court proceedings is a central feature of the First Amendment and Georgia Constitution.

“It is also well-established that protection of an open court system is not limited to allowing the public and press inside the physical confines of the courthouse, but also encompasses a freedom to discuss, report, and comment on court proceedings,” the motion says.