IN his motion to the court, defense lawyer David Hoose argued the case "has already received a large amount of attention from the local media."
This is an updated version of a story posted at 12:28 this afternoon.
Defense lawyer David Hoose is seen with client Cara Rintala in these file photos.
NORTHAMPTON – The defense attorney for Cara L. Rintala, who's charged with the 2010 murder of her wife, has asked that the courtroom be closed during hearings leading up to the trial out of fears the potential jury pool could be contaminated by press coverage.
David P. Hoose has filed a motion in Hampshire Superior Court asking that the courtroom be sealed. He is scheduled to argue his motion Tuesday before Judge Mary Lou Rup. The trial is slated to begin Feb. 11.
Rintala, 45, is accused of killing her wife, Annamarie Cochrane Rintala, in their Granby home on March 29, 2010.
In his memorandum to the court, Hoose wrote, “This case has already received a large amount of attention from the local media.”
Hoose argues there was substantial media coverage of Cochrane Rintala’s death, and again when Rintala was arrested and charged with her murder in October 2011. “ It is beyond question that the local, regional, and perhaps national print, electronic, televised and radio media will follow the case closely, including the proceedings leading up to trial.”
He said “attention has already focused on the details of Ms. Rintala's life and her relationship with her wife, the victim in this case. The effect of the media coverage has been compounded by the fact that the case has persistently been portrayed as the ‘first lesbian marriage murder case,’ a moniker which unfairly presumes the defendant's guilt.”
A Google search of the phrases “first lesbian marriage murder case” and “lesbian marriage murder” produced just two newspaper articles, and each was an early version of this story posted on Masslive.com.
Hoose wrote there is a substantial probability that Ms. Rintala's right to a fair trial “will be jeopardized by public dissemination of the evidence that the Court may ultimately rule should not be heard by the jury.”
Ironically, despite concerns for pre-trial publicity, Hoose writes in a footnote that Rintala has refrained from seeking a change in venue or selection of jurors from outside the county despite concerns for negative publicity.
Hoose declined to comment to the press about his motion.
The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone has a right to a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury in the district where the crime has occurred. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges may take steps to limit access by the press or public if there is concern that publicity could harm the defendant's chances for a fair trial.
Such requests are apparently rare.
The Northwestern District Attorney’s office could not remember the last case in which defense counsel requested the public be barred from courtroom proceedings.
In 2001, the state Supreme Judicial Court denied a request by prosecution to limit access by the press and public to the trial of a Salem man, Christopher Reardon, who was facing 122 counts of rape, assault and distribution of pornography. That trial was scheduled to be heard in Northampton Superior Court but the trial became no longer necessary when Reardon accepted a guilty plea.
In one of the more high-profile cases in the region in the last 20-years, the 2000 murder trial of Kristen Gilbert, prosecutors sought to close pre-trial hearings to the press and public for fear it would jeopardize Gilbert’s right to a fair trial. The motion was later withdrawn and the hearings and the trial were kept open.
Gilbert, a former nurse was accused of killing four patients at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Leeds and attempting to kill three others. The trial, which attracted national attention, ended with Gilbert’s conviction. She was sentenced to life in prison.
Staff wirter Patrick Johnson contributed to this report.