People v. Ayres: Where's the Justice?

Why are the prosecutor and the defense attorney in cahoots to keep a journalist from observing the Dr. William Ayres child molestation trial in Redwood City? Yup, you read correctly. A journalist who is simply reporting on the trial for the San Diego Reader and who is writing a book has been excluded from the proceedings under the auspices of a subpoena to appear in court as a "witness" that was handed to her by Doron Weinberg, the defense attorney in the case. But, is Balfour really a witness? Or is the exclusion of Balfour merely a ploy to keep the public from knowing about and hearing about the trial? If you ask Balfour she will tell you what she told me, "I am being punished by Weinberg and have been betrayed by the District Attorney's Office."

This is an issue I became aware of about two weeks ago, and I was hoping that the prosecutor, the defense and the court would do the right thing before I opened my big mouth -- but apparently it wasn't going to happen.

So, here's the backstory: In the case of People v. Ayres, Dr. William Hamilton Ayres, now 77, is accused of sexually assaulting dozens of preadolescent male patients from as far back as the 1970's. Some of you may wonder how a 77-year-old can be facing charges from so many years ago. Well, there's a reason why we can put a longtime predator behind bars:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CALIFORNIA

The reason this case can be prosecuted is the section of the penal code that allows for a lengthy period of time to file child sexual assault charges. Each state has its own prescribed length of time during which a case can be brought. In California, you can file felony child sexual assault charges for up to ten years after the event, and an extension can be granted if certain legal hurdles are overcome.

This extension has been an accepted part of case law because it is well known that children can delay disclosing sexual abuse for many years. Through the extension of the statute of limitations and the corroboration of various victims, Dr. Ayres is now facing 10 counts of felony molestation.

VICTORIA BALFOUR, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

Victoria Balfour, an investigative journalist and former reporter for People magazine, brought attention to the case of Dr. Ayers to insure that justice was done. Thanks to Balfour's investigative leads as a journalist, she was able to turn her contacts over to the District Attorney's Office, who then filed the case.

So here we find the case filed -- with the statute of limitations on the prosecutor's side -- thanks to the work of a committed journalist to insure justice. Ayres is now on trial, and one would think that Victoria Balfour would be hailed for her good work. But what thanks does the noble Balfour get? A big fat "exclusion order."

Yes, you read correctly. The very journalist who helped bring the case to justice and now wishes to simply report on the case to the public is being excluded under the auspices of a BS subpoena handed to her by the defense attorney.

An exclusion order in a criminal case is handed down if a person is a potential witness. It's meant to prevent that witness from basing his or her testimony on that of others, and to make sure the integrity of one witness's examination is not tainted by the statements or perceptions of another witness.

Yes, attorneys can legally request that witnesses can be excluded based on the fact that they are "potential witnesses." But even a loose use of "potential witness" still requires some basis for calling that witness. And what testimony would that be, Mr. Weinberg? Ms. Balfour isn't a witness -- she's a journalist covering the story like so many others!

Mr. Weinberg, you haven't interviewed, spoken to, or even asked Balfour a question. There is nothing that she can say that can possibly help you or your client. So why are you doing keeping her from doing her job?

The legalese doesn't fool us. Could it be that you don't want the public to see another one of your clients get convicted -- especially so soon after your client, Phil Spector, was convicted of 2nd degree murder nearly a month ago.

Turning to the prosecution now -- Melissa McKowan, where are you? Why aren't you standing up for the reporter who has been there for you? Where is your request for an offer of proof in terms of why Balfour is being called? What are you afraid of? Why aren't you even putting up a fight? And perhaps more important, what axe do you have to grind with Ms. Balfour? Is there a similar issue with any of the other "potential witnesses" watching the trial? Why isn't the victim's mother not a potential witness?

We all know that the prosecutor has a say -- a powerful say. So use that voice of yours and put the screws to the defense and the court. Go ahead, Ms. McKowan, and give those answers that people are waiting to hear!

From this trial will arise messages that the public needs to hear. And if not for journalists who take the time to write articles and books, the stories will remain locked within the four walls of a courtroom. The public needs to know that justice delayed is still justice. The public needs to know that boys were victimized. The public needs to understand how people in positions of trust manipulate their authority to gain access to kids.

Child sexual assault is already a crime that occurs behind closed doors. Let's end that legacy by tearing down those doors and giving "the people" the information that they need. By keeping Victoria Balfour out of court, the system is victimizing the public and denying us the access to the information that we so desperately need.

Follow Robin Sax on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robinsax

Comments

[bikecarol]

Victoria Balfour is a potential witness for the defense? This seems to be a very defensive move at best. I think that keeping her out of the courtroom just adds insult to injury to the boys who were allegedly molested, since she is the one who came to THEIR defense!

[HugoBall]

Balfour's activism is the sole reason this case was investigated and prosecuted, or so I've read, but some of you can't understand how her testimony might be of material interest to the trial her super-human, super-Thetan efforts brought about? Further, her exclusion from the proceedings because she might be called as a witness is an infringement on the public's right to know what's going on? I thought there might be some lamentable ramifications when the rest of the world's journalists and bloggers were summarily shot, leaving Balfour as the last living person able to attend and report on this trial.

I agree with durang04 and danny 0152. Either she's been central to bringing this case to fruition, or she should be allowed to attend this trial, but you can't have it both ways. From what I've come to understand, she has indeed been the central catalyst in making everything move forward, and I can understand fully well either side's desire to keep her on the list of potential witnesses. This stifles the public's right to know? There may be a lack of coverage, but it's not as if the San Francisco print and broadcast media has been barred from reporting, and there are plenty of bloggers covering every detail they can day in and day out. Spare us all the hyperbole--unless of course you're unable to know anything unless Balfour writes about it, which is not the public's problem, merely your own.

[Creola]

If it weren't for Victoria Balfour, this trial wouldn't even be happening now. What I'd like to know, is why the D.A. and the Prosecutor want her out? What are they trying to hide? Something doesn't sit right here.

[Robin Sax - Huffpost Blogger]

For those who want more information, check out this great blog which further illuminates and echoes my feelings: http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/06/journalists-and-courts-cant-we-just-all.html

[StephanieKnows]

What happened to transparency and a courtroom that is opened to the public? From my understanding of this case, the only reason that the Balfour is being excluded is an attempt 9a weak one at that) to make sure WE the public don't get to know the truth. Ayres deserves the presumption of innocence but the request to keep Balfour out makes him seem guilty. Openess and transparency would resolved that!! So, I too, I want to know why we haven't heard anything from the DA?????

[leilalevinson]

The question remains why the prosecutor is not challenging the defense's exclusion of Victoria from the courtroom. We can all spew our personal takes on what the law may or may not be, but it is the judge who should determine the legal implications of Victoria- who was single handedly responsible for this case ever coming to trial, for the victims of sexual abuse ever having their day in court- being present in the courtroom. Yet the judge will not do that unless the prosecutor challenges the exclusion of Victoria. So why hasn't that happened? Why would a prosecutor not want a journalist in the courtroom? Victoria's presence would have reassured me that I would receive a full accounting of the trial, and that would give me confidence in the final outcome, and isn't that what our justice system is supposed to provide all of us?

[VickiPolin]

I am outraged that Victoria Balfour is being excluded from the proceedings under the auspices of a subpoena to appear in court as a "witness". This is disgusting!

Victoria Balfour deserves to have a front row seat during the Aryes hearing.

The public has a right to know the truth what is being said in court and also on the way this case is being handled.

We are all very much aware that William Aryes has been manipulating his political power for years. One can't help but wonder if the DA and defense attorney are trying to hide or possibly cover up something? The odds are that Aryes political connections helped him to continue to allegedly sexually victimize so many children, for so many years.

What I find interesting in this case is that not only did Aryes go to Harvard, but so did judge Beth Freeman.

All I can say is that we need more journalist like Ms. Balfour. Thank G-d she had the courage, wisdom and tenacity to bring a case like child psychiatrist, William Aryes to the attention of law enforcement. If anyone deserves to be in the court room to ensure the public knows the truth about Aryes, it is Victoria Balfour.

I personally believe she is a true hero not only those who have allegedly been raped by Aryes, yet also for protecting the general public from any more potential danger.

[durango4]

I have to agree with danny0152. There do seem to be valid reasons why Balfour might be called, and her reporting during the trial wouldn't, presumably, affect its outcome, so there doesn't seem to be a grave injustice here. The public has a right to know, but as danny says, Balfour isn't the only journalist in the world. And it's worth noting that there is a tendency, in cases such as this, to assume guilt, even without knowing the facts. Robin Sax, for example, makes it clear that she has no doubt that the defendant ("a longtime predator") is guilty.

[HugoBall]

Not only does this prosecutor indulge in an entirely unconstitutional presumption of guilt, but has she looked into Victoria Balfour and her background at all? Has anyone? I know Balfour was a guest on Sax's show, and maybe that's enough for Sax, but a friend of mine who follows the case says there's significant evidence Balfour is a Scientologist who has been pursuing an anti-psychiatrist agenda hidden beneath all her pro-survivor activism. Don't take Balfour, this torch-and-pitchfork case, or Sax for that matter for granted. When emotions run high, the mind must take an ever higher road.

[jsomerville5]

Um. no Balfour is not a Scientologist. She is a New York City journalist who has never darkened the doors of a Scientology church or whatever it is they are called. That Victoria Balfour who signed up for a Scientology course we believe lives in London.

The Balfour in this case actually loves psychiatrists and thinks her long time New York City psychiatrist is the best shrink in the world. If she ever does write a book on the case, she will dedicate her book to him.

[naomiknows]

An "entirely unconstitutional presumption of guilt?" Really, HUGO? If Ms. Sax were trying this case I could see that phrase being put to use. But since she is writing this from a journalistic point of view--based on her years as a sex crimes prosecutor I'm pretty sure the "constitution" covers her "Freedom of Speech" in this incident! That was a pretty stupid comment, but doesn't even cover your lack of knowledge and embicile level intelligence when accusing Vicki Balfour of being a Scientologist. Although your comments are laughable at best, should she not be allowed to cover a trial because she is a scientologist--if she were??? I've read Ms. Sax's book and I'm pretty sure she's knows much more than you do on the matter!

Lastly, I don't know what the hell your point was in stating Balfour was on Sax's radio show....who cares, and what does that have to do with anything??????

Go back to your comic books!

[VickiPolin]

CALL TO ACTION:
As the Founder and CEO of The Awareness Center (the international Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault), I'm asking everyone call the District Attorney's office and the judge hearing the case demanding that Victoria Balfour be allowed back into the court room. I am also asking that all news media outlets publish stories about journalist, Victoria Balfour being band from a court room.

As citizens of he United States, the public has the right to know the truth!

CONTACT:
Beth Labson Freeman, Superior Court Judge
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/director.php?filename=generalinfo/profiles2.htm#Freeman
Department 3
Courtroom 2L
Phone: [phone]

DA's contact information:
San Mateo Chief Deputy Steve Wagstaffe
Phone: [phone]
email: swagstaffe­@co.sanmat­eo.ca.us

[dannyo152]

I'm not seeing that this is so black and white. If Ms. Balfour turned over materials and contacts which were evidence and were used to develop a case, then, while I think she did the right thing, her relationship to the prosecutor, defendant, and the trial are something beyond a reporter on the beat.

Evidence produced by the people is challengeable by the defendant for its legality in gathering and the police's care in handling. If some of the evidence was initiated with Ms. Balfour, who is not subject to constitutional search and probable cause constraints, then the defense may wish to call her to impeach the evidence at its root.

Many apologies if my lack of understanding of the law means I said something which you, as a prosecutor, know is incorrect.

As to the public's right to know, all interested publications are free to assign other reporters to the trial. The San Diego Reader's correspondent could have access to Ms. Balfour's notes regarding the story. To complete her book, Ms. Balfour can buy a transcript after the trial.