◆ SpookStack

FILED iN OFFICE TR THE SUPERTOR COURT OF FULTOH COUNTY - STATE arorera . AUS2 7 1981 TAS ? OF GEORG Fie STATE OF GEORGIA, Flaintift . Indictment Mo. AW SO/SE WAYVE B, WILLIAMS, 4. Defendant. ‘ . OPDER RESTRICTING EXTRA JODICIAL STATEMENT? BY JHE PROSECUTION, COUNSEL FOR TRE DEFENSE, POTENTIAL WITNEBGES , COURT PERSONNEL AND MEMBERS OF THE mo _ SPECIAL TASK FORCE INVESTIGATING THE TWinrry-£1GHT | Having noted thgough the news meate the nanes of two potential pronerotion witnesses “ welt az statemcots made by then regarding matters pertinent to the upconing trial of | Wayne 8. Williams, the Court, of its own’motion, hae weighed and consicered its impact on tha befendent's Constitutional right te a fair and impart {al trial. Since it is the trial judge's” responsibility te control prequdielsl pretrial publicity and the Defendant's sight to. 2 fais trial, the Court finds it absolutely. necensary to “prevent 2 Fecurrence of such poblicity py’ restrict- ing comments to the media by the Provecution, Counsel for the befense, potential witnesses, court peraonnel and penmders oF the Special Pelice Task Force: including the Comuiseioner of ‘Public Safety, the Director of the Bureav of Police Services or znyone affiliated with law enforcement. . . : Said restrictions are being imposed in keeping Vien the 0.8, Supreme Court rulings im Sbeppard V. Maxwell 384 0.8. 333 (1976) and Rebroske Press Association w, Stuart 427 0.5. $39 (1966), In Sheppard v, Maxwej}, the 0,5, Bupreme Court focused on the trial court's duty to protect the Defendant's constito- tional right to a fair trial, as follows: “Doe process requires thet the accused receiva a trial by dupartiel jory free from outside influences. Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the 4itficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity trom the minds of the Jurors, the trial court must take strong meaeures to ensure that the balence is never weighed ageinat the AE NERO ANE OS AO cham Ee watts Lyteitemtee