Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
WILLIAM N. EVANS )
Petitioner/Intervenor )
v. ) Case No. _____________
)
JOSEPH D. PLATANIA, )
COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY )
FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE )
Defendant/Respondent )
61 and including all sub-divisions, be incorporated herein, and that the legal argument in the
incorporated.
1. That Evans is a citizen of the United States and of Virginia, and is entitled to certain
rights under the First Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia Code, and Virginia’s
Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Charlottesville, and as a constitutional officer of the
1
3. That on December 14, 2017, a preliminary hearing in the James Alex Fields case was
4. That prior to the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and the
City of Charlottesville (“City”), through its agents and/or representatives and/or employees, had
Antony (“Antony”) entered two video recordings into evidence and played them in open court.
6. That under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 12 of the Virginia
Constitution, and the Virginia Code, the public has a qualified right to access the evidence filed
7. That on December 15, 2017, and then again on December 26, 2017, Evans sent requests
under VFOIA to the City, asking “to inspect or obtain copies” of two public records in the
possession of the City that were released to the public at the preliminary hearing of James Alex
8. That in particular, Evans asked to “inspect or receive copies of two video recordings of
the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville car attack that were played for the national media in open
9. That in its January 2, 2018 response, the City withheld the video recordings under
VFOIA § 2.2-3706(A)(2)(a), which allows a public body like the City to, in its “discretion”,
Department, speaking for the City, said that “While it [sic] true that the video’s [sic] requested
were played in open court, the Court granted at the end of the preliminary hearing a motion by
2
the Commonwealth to withdraw all exhibits. No exhibits including the videos requested remain
11. That in planning the City’s response to Evans’s initial VFOIA requests, there was
communication and coordination between (1) the City, through its agents and/or representatives,
Antony, and/or other representatives of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office for the City of
Charlottesville.
12. That this communication and coordination related to the events at the James Alex Fields
preliminary hearing and, in particular, to an alleged motion “to withdraw all exhibits” that was
made by the Commonwealth’s Attorney after the conclusion of that hearing, and which
13. That on January 5, 2018, Evans called the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and spoke
to Platania and Antony about the City’s denial of his VFOIA requests for the two videos shown
14. That during this January 5, 2018 telephone conversation, Evans specifically requested
that Platania and Antony give him access to the two videos that were shown at Fields’s
preliminary hearing.
15. That Evans’s request, though it was made orally over the telephone, qualifies as a formal
16. That during this January 5, 2018 telephone conversation, Platania responded to Evans’s
VFOIA request by affirmatively declining to give Evans access to the two videos.
17. That in declining to give Evans access to the two videos, Platania cited the alleged
motion “to withdraw all exhibits” that had also been cited by the City in its response to Evans.
3
18. That on January 18, 2018, Evans sent a second VFOIA request, this one in writing, to
again “to inspect or receive copies” of the two videos that were played at Fields’s preliminary
19. That on January 24, 2018, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Antony responded to
Evans’s second VFOIA request, withholding the two videos from Evans and citing the same
20. That when analyzed together, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s denial of Evans’s first and
second VFOIA requests relied on the alleged motion “to withdraw all exhibits” to invoke the
21. That in Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 285 Va. 447 (2013), the Virginia
Supreme Court held that an identical motion “to withdraw the original exhibits” was equivalent
to a motion to seal the record, and therefore subject to all the legal requirements of a motion to
seal.
22. That neither the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s alleged motion “to withdraw all exhibits”
at James Alex Fields’s preliminary hearing, nor the General District Court order allegedly
granting that motion, complied with the legal requirements to which motions to seal or close the
record are subject under the First Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, and the Virginia Code.
23. That the granting of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s motion “to withdraw all exhibits”,
if it occurred, therefore violated the public’s qualified right under the First Amendment, the
Virginia Constitution, and the Virginia Code to access the public record of the James Alex Fields
case.
4
24. That before it allegedly granted the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s motion “to withdraw all
exhibits”, the Charlottesville General District Court certified the James Alex Fields case to this
Circuit Court under VA Code § 19.2-186, thereby transferring jurisdiction over the Fields case
25. That when the General District Court certified the Fields case to this Circuit Court, the
then-extant case file had to be transferred from the General District Court to this Circuit Court
26. That part of the then-extant case file that had to be transferred to this Circuit Court under
VA Code § 16.1-69.55(A)(2) were the two video recordings that were entered into evidence and
27. That, perhaps as a result of the granting of the unlawful motion “to withdraw all exhibits”
after certification had occurred, the two videos shown at Fields’s preliminary hearing were not so
28. That Evans has visited the records rooms of both the Charlottesville General District
Court and of this Circuit Court and asked the clerks of both courts to review the James Alex
Fields case file, and has ascertained that neither the two videos shown at Fields’s preliminary
hearing on December 14, 2017, nor any of the other items filed as evidence and published at
Fields’s preliminary hearing, are contained in the open portion of the file at either location.
29. That the two videos requested by Evans under VFOIA were, as admitted by the City in its
response, played in open court before Charlottesville General District Court Judge Robert H.
30. That before the two videos were played in open court at Fields’s preliminary hearing,
5
31. That when the two videos were played at Fields’s preliminary hearing, the monitors in
the courtroom were turned to face the courtroom gallery, so that all present could see.
32. That the Commonwealth’s Attorney made no attempt to seal the video evidence before it
33. That the Commonwealth’s Attorney did not pursue a gag order or otherwise attempt to
restrain those assembled in the courtroom from reporting on the contents of the video evidence
34. That the two videos were therefore made public when they were shown in open court at
35. That in the gallery of that hearing watching the videos when they were played were
members of the national media, including reporters for the New York Times, the Washington
36. That also in the gallery of that hearing watching the videos when they were played was
Jason Kessler, an avowed white nationalist who is currently facing perjury charges in Albermarle
County.
37. That on the evening of December 14, 2017, the New York Times, the Washington Post,
CNN, and the Associated Press published articles describing Fields’s preliminary hearing.
38. That each of these articles included descriptions of the contents of the two videos that
39. That on the evening of December 14, 2017, Jason Kessler posted a video to his Twitter
page and YouTube account in which he described the contents of the videos shown at Fields’s
preliminary hearing.
6
40. That a permanent public record of the two videos was created when their contents were
reported on by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, and by
Jason Kessler.
41. That the public record of the two videos in this reporting is deficient, because no written
description, no matter how extensive or artful, can capture events as they transpired like a video
recording.
42. That the public record of the two videos in this reporting is also distorted, due to apparent
contradictions (1) within the reporting on the contents of the two videos, and (2) between the
reporting on the contents of the two videos and other publicly available evidence of the events
43. That the best way to clarify the public record is to unseal the video recordings if they
have been unlawfully sealed, order the Commonwealth’s Attorney to return the two videos to the
Fields case file if they have been unlawfully removed, or, alternatively, to release the two videos
44. That under the common law principle of waiver, Platania cannot exercise his “discretion”
to withhold, under VFOIA § 2.2-3706(A)(2)(a), a public record that has already been made
45. That to allow Platania to withhold the two videos from Evans under VFOIA § 2.2-
3706(A)(2)(a), after the two videos have already been viewed and reported on by the New York
Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, and Jason Kessler, would constitute a
46. That government-sanctioned “selective disclosures” of court records to some, but not all,
members of the public violates the First Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia
7
Code, and the principles on which VFOIA was passed by the General Assembly and that are
47. That given all of the above, Platania violated Evans’s rights and privileges under the First
Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia Code, and VFOIA, §§ 2.2-3700 et seq.,
48. That Evans’s intervention in the Fields case is appropriate under Rule of Court 3:14,
because the public’s qualified right of access to the Fields case file, under the First Amendment,
the Virginia Constitution, and the Virginia Code, is a “claim . . . germane to the subject matter of
the proceeding.” See, e.g., Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 285 Va. 447 (2013);
49. That VFOIA § 2.2-3713(A) provides that “[a]ny person . . . denied the rights and
privileges conferred by this chapter may proceed to enforce such rights and privileges by filing a
50. That VA Code §§ 8.01-644 et seq. also provides Evans the right to file a petition for
51. That Evans has no remedy at law for this violation of his rights under the First
Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, the Virginia Code, and VFOIA, but for his right under
VFOIA § 2.2-3713(A) and VA Code §§ 8.01-644 et seq. to file a petition for mandamus against
Platania.
52. That this Court has jurisdiction over this petition under VFOIA § 2.2-3713(A)(2) and
8
WHEREFORE, Petitioner Evans, as he is without sufficient and adequate remedy, prays
1. Grant his Motion to Intervene in the Fields case to assert his and the public’s rights
under the First Amendment, the Virginia Constitution, and the Virginia Code;
2. Grant his Motion to Withdraw the Sealing Order (if one exists) limiting public access
return the two video recordings to the file of the James Alex Fields case;
deliver copies of the requested video recordings to Evans as required under VFOIA,
§§ 2.2-3700 et seq.;
5. Award costs and attorneys fees, as provided in VA Code § 8.01-648 and VFOIA
§ 2.2-3713(D);
6. Order Platania to pay a fine of up to $2000 to the State Literary Fund as a penalty for
this knowing and willful violation of VFOIA, as provided in VFOIA § 2.2-3714; and
_______________________________________
9
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, to wit:
I, William N. Evans, petitioner herein, being duly sworn, say that I have read the
foregoing and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
______________________________
William N. Evans
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of ____, 2018 by William N. Evans.
My commission expires:
______________________________
10