Skip to main content

See also:

Defense in James Holmes case cites Don King and plays race card

Defense brings up Don King (left) because they don't want to disclose real issue (right)
Defense brings up Don King (left) because they don't want to disclose real issue (right)
Composite/Wikicommons/Jon Holley

In an unusual reference in a document (PDF) filed June 6, 2014 in response to the TV networks and other media outlet's request to block closing jury questioning in the Aurora Theater attack case, the defense cited the retrial of boxing promoter Don King for wire fraud. Essentially they are claiming since the trial of Don King involved “inflammatory headlines” and “racially charged issues”, closure of voir dire was an acceptable solution in Don King's case and should be in the case against James Holmes as well. However, in the James Holmes case, there are no racially charged issues and the most inflammatory headline was generated by the defense when they sneaked in a claim that Holmes tried to plead guilty. This claim also led many media outlets to no longer use the term allegedly when addressing James Holmes attack on the theater.

With the exception of witnesses/victims being allowed to talk to each other and reporters on the many ways they want James Holmes to die, there hasn't been hardly any inflammatory statements. The defense filed a motion to slap down the court public information officer over his tweets, but has not publicly even tried to close down an internet forum created for the victims to communicate.

One of the primary reasons both the defense and prosecution want to take the rare step and close jury voir dire is they don't want to publicize that they questioned the jurors about the issues raised in the book “Aurora”. Both the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force have violated the gag order in order to keep it under wraps. The prosecution even tried to keep James Holmes' medical records from the defense.

It will be interesting to see if the defense and the prosecution file any motions in the open that are not suppressed in order to prevent the jurors from knowing about the book and the issues contained within.