These collages and the hosting of the images on this site provided courtesy of E-mail me at willnotagz@aol.com.

Richmond Police Chief Rodney Monroe asked for and was granted a gag order in the case involving the murder of 17-year old Taylor Behl. The gag order applies to everyone testifying before the special grand jury convened earlier this month to allow investigators to obtain sworn statements from potential witnesses. The grand jury has the ability to subpoena witnesses to testify under the penalty of perjury.

A spokesperson for the Richmond Police Department, Kirsten Nelson informed the press that the there would be no further comments on the case because of the gag order. Monroe has interpreted the gag order to apply to every office on his departments, as well as all investigators participating with the multi-jurisdictional task force that formed when his department took over the investigation - whether those officers or investigators testify before the grand jury or not.

The list included with the gag order includes those testifying before the grand jury, several of Taylor's friends at VCU and at home in Vienna. George O. Peterson, the attorney for Miss Behl's mother, has "concerns about the scope" of the gag order. The order does not specifically list him or Ms. Pelasara. Peterson said yesterday that that the order is "very limited and shouldn't be read as broadly as people are reading it." He went further to say that the statements made by Ben Fawley are not covered by the gag order, as the statements made by the only suspect in the case "took place outside of the grand jury."

Being the curious sort, rather than rely on notions that I have about gag orders, I decided to do some quick research to see what gag order are, who they apply to, and just how legal they are. I am not a lawyer, and I have no legal training. What is below is what I have gathered from reading through several articles about gag orders. This information is not being offered as "fact" but only as reference to perhaps give a better understanding on gag orders.

Gag orders sometimes become necessary when the disclosure of specific details might possibly interfere with, or compromise the integrity of an investigation. Gag orders, however, add legal problems of their own, as they limit the First Amendment rights of participants to free speech. Courts have to weigh that freedom against several factors, including the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to receive a fair trial. Since pretrial publicity could potentially taint the jury pool, courts sometimes impose gag orders under the pretext of protecting the process of justice for the accused.

In many past appeals, gag orders have been struck down as invalid, depending on how they applied to certain individuals or entities involved with the case. About half of all states have issued rulings that specifically apply to gag orders. The federal courts, including the US Supreme Court have issued rulings that both support and invalidate gag orders. The rulings by the federal courts follow a path of validating those orders that are designed to give defendants a fair trial. Some of the gag orders that do that limit the speech of attorneys directly involved with the cases. The courts tend to rule invalid any gag orders that tend to limit any discussion about the case at all.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, a circuit court in 1992 ordered that prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel were to avoid comments about the defendant and the case. The court reminded those involved to comply with ethical rules regarding pretrial publicity. (Commonwealth v. Starkley, 1992 WL 884421)

In a society where openness and free access to the processes of government, including the process of justice, limiting access is a serious matter. In the age of 'instant news' where what is happening right now can be transmitted into the homes of everyone in real time, the protection of the accused rights to receive a fair trial can be negatively impacted. Those are the two issues that courts have to consider when issuing an order to limit what the public may hear.

Interestingly, Richmond, VA, is one of the cities that became involved in a 1980's case that reached the Supreme Court of the United States. In that case, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, the press challenged a gag order limiting the media's access to information about a case. The Court ruled that there is a common law to review and copy court records as they pertain to open proceedings. These records typically include transcripts, pleadings, motions, court orders, and anything that has been admitted into evidence. Justice Marshall, writing the opinion of the Court, stressed that trials have historically been open to the public, and that such openness serves an extremely important function of providing an outlet for public concern.

The links below are to the major network news and the stations in the area providing full coverage of Taylor's Case. These are the major source of the information provided on this site. Also included are links to the various Weblogs and other sites of interest.

The links below are to the major network news and the stations in the area providing full coverage of Taylor's Case. These are the major source of the information provided on this site. Also included are links to the various Weblogs and other sites of interest.

The information on this page was obtained through public and private sources. The images may be updated, changed, corrected, or deleted by E-mailing me at willnotagz@aol.com. You may also view an updated version of this webpage at: http://taylorbehl.notagz.com/. You may use the pictures and host them on official or other private sites. Where possible give collage credit to E-mail me at willnotagz@aol.com. I also welcome messages regarding broken links, continuity, grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.

---

Permissions: Anyone may quote from, reprint, repost, or otherwise transmit the article above provided they give credit to the writer, William Drummond, and reference the website http://taylorbehl.notagz.com.

---