Judge issues limited gag order to restrict ‘public extrajudicial comments’ in Esparto fireworks case

A Yolo County judge has imposed a limited gag order as court proceedings for the deadly Esparto fireworks explosion proceed.

Judge Daniel Maguire wrote in a decision filed June 8 that the prosecutors’ motion to issue the order, also called a pretrial publicity protective order, would be granted “in part.” Gag orders can be used to limit statements by attorneys, witnesses, law enforcement and other parties involved with a case.

Maguire had previously said he would issue a written decision on the issue. His order states that “the parties and their agents” cannot make any public extrajudicial comments regarding:

• The merits of the Esparto case
• Any written or oral arguments made by any party
• Evidence in the case
• The investigation of the case
• Any of the defendants’ relationships with each other, or with any victim
• The character of any victim or defendant

Maguire wrote that the motion “presented a clash” between the imperative for a fair trial and the First Amendment right to free speech. 

“There is clear evidence showing that, without a court order, the parties in this case are likely to embark on efforts to try the case through the media and public statements,” Maguire wrote. The judge’s decision also said this poses "serious and imminent threat” to trial integrity, especially regarding the need to find an impartial jury in Yolo County.

Maguire noted California has two standards that apply to pretrial publicity orders, and he followed the stricter standard because it is more broadly accepted by state courts “and because it more appropriately recognizes the disfavored nature of prior restraints.” 

Maguire’s order does not apply to the victims’ family members, the public, media and any “non-party agency” like Cal Fire or Cal/OSHA. 

Prosecutors had aimed to include some of these entities within the order, but Maguire wrote that they only made “vague and conclusory statements about prejudicial extrajudicial statements” and did not provide sufficient evidence to support their arguments.

The judge’s decision says the court reserves the ability to modify the gag order as a trial approaches, depending on changing circumstances.

Where did the request come from?

Prosecutors from the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office filed a motion in May calling for a gag order. 

They called for it to apply to all defendants as “certain Yolo County employees and employees of other local and state agencies, Court staff, law enforcement officers, all other potential witnesses, attorneys for both sides, and/or agents of the attorneys from making certain extrajudicial statements related to this case.” 

The DA’s office did not aim to restrict media coverage or activity, or to ban statements based on publicly available information.

Prosecutors pointed to a May 15 article in The San Francisco Standard in which two defense attorneys spoke about a recent California Supreme Court decision in the case of People v. Richard Curtis Morris Jr., and how it could impact the Esparto case. The ruling says defendants must be directly involved in committing the act of murder itself, not just the “underlying felony.”

In court on June 1, Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays also referenced two Sacramento Bee articles as additional evidence. 

One looked into whether Cal Fire investigators obstructed a Cal/OSHA investigation of the Esparto explosion and included statements from employees in both agencies. The second story was about the DA’s office request for gag orders. It referenced the Standard article and included additional comments from one of the defense attorneys.

Defense attorney David Fischer accused the DA’s office of creating the problem by holding an April news conference that he said put out inaccurate information. Fischer said the defense had not held a press conference in response, and that the motion for a gag order was premature.

Representatives from Cal Fire and Cal/OSHA also opposed the order. They told Maguire it would interfere with their regulatory and public safety duties.

Maguire’s written order references both the initial April press conference and the defense attorneys’ statements to the Standard and the Bee. “Without a protective order, it seems quite likely that the public debate between the parties will continue and intensify as the case moves to trial,” he wrote.

Maguire is scheduled to continue hearing a bail motion for defendant Douglas Tollefsen on June 18. Another hearing is scheduled for July 1 regarding the approval of a privilege screen procedure, and multiple defendants will return to court July 30 for status conference hearings or further arraignment.