A Colbert County judge has dismissed requests to block media access to court appearances and limit media reporting in the case of a man accused of killing a Sheffield police officer and another man .
Brian Lansing Martin, 41, has been charged with three counts of capital murder, two counts of attempted murder, two counts of shooting in an occupied vehicle and one count of felony in possession of a firearm in part of a series of events involving a shootout, vehicle chase and shootout with police on October 1.
See also: Alone in eviction court: Alabama seeks to provide lawyers
1 shot at Huntsville; a policeman crashes on the way
Whistleblower secures $ 24 million in Hyundai-Kia engine recall case
District Judge Chad Coker’s order on Tuesday says cameras were never allowed in courtrooms in Colbert County, but media will be allowed inside for court proceedings, and cameras will be permitted outside the courtroom and on courthouse property.
Coker is also allowing case participants to comment on the case for the media, but said anyone commenting on the case should “carefully consider the impact” of any statements. He also reserved the right to revisit the matter.
Motions to allow Martin to attend his preliminary hearing on December 3 and to record the hearing were granted.
Martin is charged with the murder of Sgt. Nick Risner, a US Army veteran who joined forces in Sheffield eight years ago, and William Mealback Jr., who was shot and dumped from his own car before the shootout Martin subsequently engaged with police .
One of the attempted murder charges stems from the injury of Sheffield Police Lieutenant Max Dotson. Dotson has filed a lawsuit seeking $ 375,000 in damages from Brian Lansing Martin.
Rebecca Green Thomason, who represents Martin, had called on bar trial participants, including law enforcement and prosecutors, to make statements to media outside the court, arguing that such statements could taint the eventual group of jurors.
Another motion called for a ban on photographing, broadcasting or recording the court proceedings, arguing in documents that “the proceedings in this case have received wide publicity, much of which has been inaccurate,” false, speculative and inflammatory ”.
