A week after the city requested a gag order to stop public comments in the federal lawsuit brought by a woman who claims she was sexually harassed by former Chattanooga police detective Karl Fields, attorneys on both sides filed responses defending their statements to the media and calling the city's request premature.
In that request, the city argued that were it allowed to continue, the public back-and-forth on both sides would make it impossible to find an unbiased jury pool. It also argues that the comments, particularly those made to the Times Free Press, violate a federal prohibition against extrajudicial statements.
Fields' attorney, Jerry Tidwell, argued in his response that he doesn't violate that prohibition.
"Counsel for Mr. Fields first contends that none of the statements made thus far can reasonably be construed as influencing the ability of any of the parties to receive a fair trial. Secondly, a vast majority of statements made to date by Mr. Fields' counsel has quoted or referred directly to public records," Tidwell wrote.
Statements made in reference to public records are exempt from the rule on extrajudicial statements, federal rules that limit the public comments attorneys make outside of court in order to avoid biasing potential jurors. In particular, the city took issue with a news release that Tidwell sent out after a code of conduct hearing ended with Fields' firing. Tidwell defended those statements as well.
"The case is high-profile and of great interest to the media. This fact cannot be avoided. The statements the City quoted in its motion by counsel for both Mr. Fields and [the victim] were made in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile Internal Affairs hearing," Tidwell wrote.
Tidwell wrote that a reasonable order is "not a bad idea."
Attorneys for the woman argued more strongly against a gag order.
"It is not disputed that this case is of great public concern and several reporters will write about it in their respective news outlets," attorney Stuart James wrote. "However, a trial is scheduled for over a year away, much discovery has yet to take place, and a prosecutor has yet to present a criminal case to a grand jury. Simply stated, any bars or limitations upon the parties are, at this time, premature."
James went on to say that no confidential information had been shared, and no "demonstrated acts of bad faith" had occurred. He and attorney McCracken Poston were responding to legitimate media questions and weren't violating any rules, James wrote.
A hearing to address the city's request is scheduled for May 29.
Contact staff writer Claire Wiseman at cwiseman@timesfreepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @clairelwiseman.