Media may be barred from certain trial exhibits

HARTINGTON – Lawyers in an upcoming murder trial are making plans to invoke a protective order barring the media from having access to videos, photographs and other evidence.

Corey O’Brien, with the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office, will be making the request prior to the September murder trial against Jason Jones, 44, Laurel, in which he is accused of murdering four people – Gene Twiford, Janet Twiford, Dana Twiford and Michele Shankles-Ebeling - and setting their houses on fire Aug. 4, 2022.

The trial was moved to Dakota County due to extensive media coverage, among other issues.

O’Brien will be making the request to restrict media access in reviewing evidence during Jones’ murder trial and possibly even through the prosecution of his wife, 45-year-old Carrie Jones, as she’s charged with the murder of Gene Twiford, tampering with evidence and being an accessory in the crime.

If evidence from Jason Jones’ trial makes it into the public’s domain, O’Brien fears it will be difficult to seat a fair and impartial jury when it’s time to prosecute Carrie Jones.

“This is something that will be on the news probably every night and there might be articles in the paper every day,” he said. “As an officer of the court, it’s my duty to try to protect the integrity of not only this trial but Mrs. Jones’ future trial. The media, there will be a time and place when they can see all this evidence, but it shouldn’t be until we resolve both of these matters.” Jason Jones’ lawyer, Todd Lancaster of the Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, agreed that a protective order could protect the jury from media influence.

“I think the media should be allowed to report whatever they see in court. . . . They shouldn’t be prevented from that,” Lancaster said, but having access to certain exhibits should be limited.

Judge Bryan Meismer said he would be inclined to sign a protective order sealing certain exhibits until both cases are resolved.

But in another order entered Monday, Meismer didn’t think the media influence was enough to keep the jury sequestered during the presentation of evidence at trial.

He denied a motion to sequester the jury, citing procedure established that immediately after jurors are sworn in, they are admonished not to discuss the case among themselves or anyone else when court is not in session, as well as not read, view or listen to any news reports regarding the case.

Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions unless evidence to the contrary is shown, Meismer said.

However, outside influence of a jury is an ongoing issue, he said, and he will revisit it at the request of either party and the presentation of additional evidence.

The lawyers also appeared through videoconference Monday morning to argue other pre-trial motions.

Lancaster was overruled on his motion objecting to the prosecution “death qualifying” the jury which relates to asking about potential jurors about their views of the death penalty.

He argued jurors’ task will be to determine if the state has proven aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, with the ultimate decision of weighing mitigating circumstances and imposing a sentence left up to a three-judge panel in Nebraska death penalty cases.

Excluding jurors based on “death qualifying” questions results in a jury not being drawn from a fair cross section of the community, Lancaster argued.

O’Brien said if any juror indicates they have reservations about the death penalty, additional inquiries will be made to determine if the juror would be impacted in their ability to set those feeling aside and be fair and impartial.

“Just because somebody expresses concerns about the death penalty and are opposed to it, doesn’t mean they’re automatically excluded for cause. It does give us grounds to inquire to them and explain the law to them,” O’Brien said. “Can they decide the case based on what’s presented in court and not their opinions on the death penalty?”

Lancaster and O’Brien also argued the trustworthiness of business records from a security system from the Twiford home that will be used in evidence at trial.

O’Brien said during the course of the investigation it was discovered that a Twiford family member received an alert on her phone indicating movement in the house at 3:02 a.m. the day of the murders.

Last year, the Nebraska legislature changed the law regarding authentication of records, making it possible for the custody of the record to certify it through documents instead of testifying in court.

Lancaster took issue with the documents provided by the prosecution to authenticate the security firm’s records, saying it violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses as the records were obtained expressly for the purpose of trial.

“They just parrot the statute,” he said. “There’s no indication of how these records were kept, how they were generated for presentation, the source of those records. It falls short of being trustworthy just on its face.”

O’Brien said his office complied with the way the new statute applies in Nebraska.

“Rather than having the custodian of record come in, we wanted to avail ourselves of the new statute,” O’Brien said. “We understand this is a murder case. We don’t want to cut any corners. We don’t think we are.”

In the end, Meismer agreed in part with Lancaster that more could be done such as having the authenticity documents certified as part of a sworn affidavit or notarized, and ordered that be a requirement to submit the evidence at trial.