Chafin v. Hunter et al, No. 2:2011cv00034 - Document 64 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to the jury trial held October 10-12, 2012, the court reporter is directed to accomplish the following redactions of the transcript as forth herein; directing that the unredacted version of the aforementioned pages herein be filed under seal. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/9/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON APRIL TOMBLIN CHAFIN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:11-0034 LOGAN COUNTY COMMISSION and LOGAN COUNTY HOME CONFINEMENT DEPARTMENT and JOHN REED, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was tried to a jury on October 10, 2012. On October 12, 2012, a verdict was returned in plaintiff s favor. During her testimony, witness Sherry Frye-Cochran accused certain third parties of committing acts of moral turpitude or criminal misconduct. There is one instance in which counsel for the plaintiff mentioned a correctional officer in the same manner.1 Assuming that a trial transcript qualifies for protection under both the common-law and First Amendment rights of public access to judicial records and documents, there are It may be the case that the correctional officer s identity is known in the event that the matter became the subject of a separate civil action by Ms. Frye-Cochran. If that is the case, the court will entertain a motion to unseal the individual s identity. 1 narrow instances where a sealing order might properly issue. For example, our court of appeals once observed as follows: [W]e note that the court has the power to insure that its records are not used to promote public scandal, and we agree with the district court's finding that the excised material is impertinent and scandalous to one or more persons mentioned in the documents. In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 236 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting in part Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The court concludes that a sealing order is proper to the limited extent of redacting the identities of those third parties mentioned by Ms. Frye-Cochran and during the closing argument of counsel for the plaintiff. Additionally, to avoid contextual clues, the entirety of one line of the transcript will be redacted as well. Accordingly, the court reporter is directed to accomplish the following redactions of the transcript: Page Line reference 339 Entirety of line 20. 364 Name found in line 11. 343 366 383 383 495 Names found in lines 8-9. Name found in line 17. Name found in line 8. Name found in line 11. Name found in line 1. 2 It is further ORDERED that the unredacted version of the aforementioned pages be, and it hereby is, filed under seal. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. DATED: November 9, 2012 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.