NICHOLS v. JACKSON

NICHOLS v. JACKSON
2002 OK 65
55 P.3d 1044
Case Number: 96609
Decided: 07/02/2002

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

[55 P.3d 1044]
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS, Defendant/Petitioner
v.
THE HONORABLE NILES L. JACKSON, PRESIDING ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Respondent

ORDER

¶1 On consideration of the defendant/petitioner's, Terry Lynn Nichols (Nichols), application and petition to assume original jurisdiction and to issue a writ of mandamus and his subsequently filed motion to continue to seal the record and/or to selectively seal portions of the record and the responses thereto, THE COURT DETERMINES:

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, THAT the contract entered between the Public Defender and Hermanson on September 23, 1999, executed through "practice and procedure," lacks constitutional, statutory or other legal authority and should be declared void. The fees and expenses heretofore paid to Hermanson are declared to be reasonable under the teachings of State v. Lynch, 1990 OK 82, 796 P.2d 1150. Application of the same standards should be utilized in the computation of any future fees.

¶3 In consideration of the constitutional rights of the criminal defendant, the answer certified by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Nichols v. Jackson, 2001 OK CR 35, 38 P.3d 228, the general right of the public to know recognized by the Open Records Act, the acknowledgment that records of money budgeted for and paid in Nichols' defense have been a matter of public record since the date of the first payment in October of 1999, records relating to fees and expenditures of Nichols' defense should be selectively sealed. The request for selective sealing of the record should be granted except to the extent that the request seeks to keep from public view the list of expenses associated with overhead and the purchase of equipment and general references to budget expenses for travel and expert witness fees. Specifics as to travel destinations and utilization of expert witnesses should be excised before any document is released as a public record. The trial court is directed to rule upon all questions arising during the progress of the trial as to the selective sealing or unsealing of selected instruments, using the standards as handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Nichols v. Jackson, supra.

¶4 Original jurisdiction should be assumed and the writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent or his successor to act in a manner consistent with provisions of this order.

¶5 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2002.

S/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6 CONCUR: HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, OPALA, KAUGER, BOUDREAU, JJ.

¶7 NOT PARTICIPATING: SUMMERS, J.

¶8 DISQUALIFIED: WINCHESTER, J.