A little confusion on who requested the gag order in the Robison case.
I got some of my information on that gag order in the Robison hearing post from a source in the courtroom, present for the hearing. Not blaming my source; I usually double check. Been recovering from major surgery so took a bit of short cut today but that is not an excuse.
Deputy DA Carolyn Schaffer emailed me. This is her entire response:
"First, this was a defense request for a protective order to prohibit government dissemination of information to the public about the case and limit media access to the defendant. The protective order was not requested by our office.
Second, I refused to agree to and sign the "gag" order. I did so because the public has a right to request information under the Public Records Act, and unless an exemption applies, public entities (including the District Attorney's Office) must comply with such requests. As I explained to the judge, I would submit to any orders issued by the court. However, the court agreed to put the matter over so that I may draft a new proposed order.
To be clear, I am drafting a proposed order not because I'm requesting a gag order, but because if there is a gag order in place, it should not limit lawful access to information.