May 242016
 May 24, 2016  Posted by  Court

Tim Darragh reports:

 A federal judge erred in ordering the public release of the names of the Bridgegate uninidicted co-conspirators, misunderstanding how the publicity would violate the individuals’ privacy, a lawyer for an anonymous unindicted co-conspirator said in a court filing Monday.

Jenny Kramer, a former prosecutor representing “John Doe,” the anonymous individual who federal prosecutors say is someone who either was allegedly involved in the Bridgegate plan or its coverup but not charged, asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the brief to keep his name secret.

Read more on Doe’s lawyer raised three arguments, but here’s the one that gave me pause:

Wigenton incorrectly ruled that the names of Bridgegate unindicted co-conspirators could be made public because they “had a diminished or non-existent right of privacy because of their public status and the media’s extensive coverage of Bridgegate,” the brief says. “But that reasoning simply misunderstands the nature of the ‘privacy’ right at issue, which is the right not to have one’s reputation and career needlessly ruined.”

  2 Responses to “NJ: Judge misunderstood ‘John Doe’s’ privacy rights in Bridgegate, filing says”

  1. I think it’s a tough one . U r supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so i get why they want to keep names out of the media.
    However, if these were just regular person without any name notoriety, would they be given the same courtesy to release no names?

    I think the main issue for me is them using their influence to Still say private.

    ( and no i don’t think the media should be allowed in the courtroom. Its going to be such a f&$d up media cricus. But that is another issue)

  2. I meant to say regular people. Not person

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.