Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re the Buffalo News
Citations: 969 F. Supp. 869; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8943Docket: No. 97-MC-2
Court: District Court, W.D. New York; February 4, 1997; Federal District Court
On April 25, 1995, a search warrant was issued for the residence of William and Jennifer McVeigh in Pendleton, New York, as part of the investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing, for which Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were indicted. The warrant was sealed to aid the ongoing investigation, with limited openings for filing and discovery purposes. Since April 1995, the court received multiple media requests to unseal the warrant, which were denied based on the Government's assertion of continued investigative necessity. On January 10, 1997, a motion was filed to unseal the warrant, with the Government expressing no objection. However, Timothy and Jennifer McVeigh opposed the motion, citing concerns over Timothy’s fair trial rights and Jennifer’s privacy interests. The court granted the motion to unseal in part, with certain redactions to protect personal privacy. It acknowledged Timothy McVeigh's Sixth Amendment rights but emphasized the public's First Amendment right to access court documents. The court noted that there was no dispute that Timothy McVeigh is indicted and that neither his father nor sister is a target of the investigation. The court found no indication of concern from the presiding trial judge regarding the unsealing request. Timothy McVeigh’s opposition papers did not demonstrate a substantial probability of prejudice to his right to a fair trial or that reasonable alternatives to non-disclosure were inadequate, as per the standards set in *Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court*. The court noted that careful voir dire can mitigate the effects of pretrial publicity and that mere assertions of potential prejudice do not suffice to override the First Amendment right of access. While the petitioners’ request for access was not denied, the court acknowledged the need to balance public access with the privacy rights of individuals whose personal information may be disclosed. Notably, neither Jennifer nor William McVeigh was a target of the investigation, allowing the court to protect certain personal information under the "intimate relations" exception. Specifically, the titles of books seized from Jennifer McVeigh’s bedroom and William McVeigh’s description of his children's political beliefs were deemed protectable due to their intimate nature. The court emphasized the importance of privacy over information already known to government agents, distinguishing between governmental access and potential public disclosure. Ultimately, the motion to unseal the warrant and related documents was partially granted, with necessary redactions to protect privacy interests. The materials will be made available on February 13, 1997, at 10:00 A.M. The court considered William McVeigh's privacy interests despite his lack of opposition.