United States v. Fitzsimons
Criminal No. 2021-0158
| D.D.C. | Dec 6, 2021Background:
- Defendant Kyle Fitzsimons is charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot; the Government sought and obtained his pretrial detention after hearings in April and September 2021.
- The Government submitted several video and audio exhibits (police body‑worn camera footage, Capitol surveillance video, a town‑meeting call, voicemails, and recorded jail calls) to support detention; neither party sought sealing when submitting them.
- A coalition of media organizations (the Press Coalition) sought access to those exhibits under Standing Order 21‑28; the Government supported release; Fitzsimons opposed on grounds of trial prejudice.
- The Court treated the exhibits as judicial records because they were submitted and extensively relied on to influence detention decisions.
- Applying the D.C. Circuit’s six‑factor Hubbard test, the Court found the public interest and prior public access outweighed defendant’s prejudice concerns and granted full access (including permission to copy and publish) via the U.S. Attorney’s electronic dropbox.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exhibits are judicial records | Exhibits were submitted to and relied on by the court to decide detention | (Fitzsimons) did not dispute classification | Court: Exhibits are judicial records |
| Whether Hubbard balancing permits public disclosure | Strong presumption of access; high public interest in Jan. 6 materials; prior public airing and filings favor release | Release would sensationalize materials, taint jury pool, and prejudice fair trial rights | Court: All six Hubbard factors weigh for disclosure; prejudice insufficient to overcome presumption; traditional remedies (voir dire, change of venue) adequate |
| Scope of access (copying/publication) | Press Coalition seeks ability to inspect, download, record, retransmit exhibits | Fitzsimons urged restrictions to limit publicity and prejudice | Court: Granted full inspection and copying rights under Standing Order 21‑28, including recording and publication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leopold, 964 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (articulates common‑law right of public access and framework for assessing judicial records)
- MetLife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (recognizes strong presumption of public access and need to balance competing interests)
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (establishes six‑factor test for sealing/judicial records)
- In re Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., 653 F.2d 609 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (disclosure may be warranted where exhibits raise issues of public importance)
- EEOC v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (public need for access where records are specifically referred to in a judge’s public decision)
- United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 520 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.D.C. 2020) (documents submitted to influence judicial decision carry strong presumption of access)