This article is confusing. From the text of the article, it seems that Lafever's attorney sought a special master, which is *commonly* used for reporter's privilege cases — not that he sought a special master FOR assessing Lafever's reporters privilege. You have access to the court records — did they specifically state that Lafever wanted to appoint the special master for this purpose? If so, why didn't you say so in the body of the article, along with any quotes? Can you provide copies of the court records?
We are working to get the docket unsealed. Today, in court, it was stated that the prosecution and defense will file a joint order and the judge will rule on it. You are right that we are still reporting missing pieces to this puzzle.
This article is confusing. From the text of the article, it seems that Lafever's attorney sought a special master, which is *commonly* used for reporter's privilege cases — not that he sought a special master FOR assessing Lafever's reporters privilege. You have access to the court records — did they specifically state that Lafever wanted to appoint the special master for this purpose? If so, why didn't you say so in the body of the article, along with any quotes? Can you provide copies of the court records?
We are working to get the docket unsealed. Today, in court, it was stated that the prosecution and defense will file a joint order and the judge will rule on it. You are right that we are still reporting missing pieces to this puzzle.