Except when Spencer saw legitimate protection for his daughter, protection that courts routinely afford in far less sensitive circumstances.

Oh, she's talking about when, I don't know if you were off, they tried to seal a record that had their daughter's information in it.

And the judge refused to do it.

And she, she, she, she not have the initials in.

Wow.

Yeah.

Okay.

The court's selective secrecy sends the opposite message that Spencer is too dangerous for a public trial,

that the public cannot be trusted to witness it, and that those who speak about it may face sanction.

The cumulative effect is to insulate the actions of both the state and the court from public scrutiny until well after the fact, when only fragmentary recollections remain.

That secrecy fosters the appearance of bias and undermines respect for the judicial process itself.

Moreover, because Spencer is declared a candidate for public, is a declared

candidate for public office. The constitutional stakes are even higher. The public has a legitimate

and heightened interest in transparent judicial proceedings involving a public figure.

So true. Yes. Nine, structural conflicts in the appearance of partiality and

evidentiary rulings. Although this case will ultimately be decided by a jury, the role of the trial

judge in shaping the process cannot be overstated. The presiding judge will rule on the admissibility

and scope of expert testimony,

resolve motions in limine, address objections in real time and determine whether witnesses,

particularly law enforcement witnesses, are providing responsive and complete testimony.

These rulings will directly affect how the jury understands the state's investigation, the handling of evidence, the credibility of the state's witnesses, and ultimately the strength and merit of the prosecution's case.

The court's demeanor and treatment of counsel also impacts the jury's perception of counsel and its assessment of counsel's credibility.

...