Pennsylvania judge bars release of police shooting video before trial
Judge said making video public before trial was "highly unusual"

by David Dekok | Reuters | May 20, 2015



A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday barred the release of a video that allegedly shows a Hummelstown police officer shooting a traffic-stop suspect to death earlier this year as the man lay face down on the ground.

Judge Deborah Curcillo of Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas said making the video public before trial was “highly unusual” and would jeopardize the ability of Officer Lisa Mearkle to receive a fair trial for criminal homicide.

“This ruling only prevents the public from viewing the video and forming opinions about it prior to a constitutionally protected proceeding,” Curcillo wrote in her 11-page ruling.

“The limitation this Court now places upon release is merely that the video shall not be released prior to trial.”

RIP cousin, we will get justice for you!

As it should be. The court is where trial should be held and evidence presented. The court of public opinion is both unregulated and ignorant of all the related facts. No doubt, the vid will be a part of the official proceedings and that's the way it ought to be. To put it into the public domain ahead of the trial potentially taints the jury pool.

dude was my cousin, she tazed him 4 times, then shot him twice. she claimed there was an "altercation" which there wasnt. this cop got a complaint list a mile long going back how many years for harassing people.

And, personal issues aside, none of that has any bearing ahead of the trial. That's why we HAVE trials. A jury of our peers, sequestration from potentially biasing information and, in the end, justice. You're fond of the Constitution; is that only when it doesn't affect you personally?

no i am always fond of it, im confident justice will prevail.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you EXCEPT that any other individual is not granted the same "fairness". As 5 minutes of TV news will prove, the innocent until proven guilty citizen "criminal" has their image and video of the incident broadcast for public opinion court on a two minute loop.

Yet, an untainted jury pool can be found when their cases come to trial?

If video of police wrong doing exists, then it should be given the same exposure as any other criminal act. The alternative is to limit the media to reporting ONLY verdicts of crimes and playing videos only AFTER those verdicts AND sentences have been rendered.

Put the blindfold back on justice.

^^^One battle at a time, partner. *sigh*

Having been a former member of that very media - and not anymore, precisely because of what you've posted - I sympathize. 'If it bleeds, it leads' is a preposterous and self-serving policy. That said, every little step forward is a win. In this particular case, a judge made what I believe to be the right call.

Got to take progress as it comes. Wish I could hurry it, but that's not gonna happen.

o well it will all come out in court, and she will be found guilty, its on video of her tazing him 4 times while hes laying on his stomach and then shooting him twice while the camera was still on. shes got a complaint list going back 10 years or more. eveyrone in this town knows her and hates her. if shes found not guilty, ill be the first one protesting outside the courthouse. and by protesting i dont mean burning CVS's down or lighting cars on fire.

and my other cousin (the one who died's brother) was right there telling the cop "HES NOT ARMED, HES NOT ARMED" and she tazed him some more before actually shooting him.