By Carlos Gaona

For the Daily Titan

Judge Morris Jacobson of Alameda County Superior Court has denied a request to lift a gag order he placed in January 2009 after a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer shot an unarmed and restrained 22-year-old in the back.

This gag order, Jacobson said, was “to protect the integrity of the case against Johannes Mehserle.”

This case has been widely covered by the media and numerous videos of the incident have been posted online.

Videos taken by bystanders show BART police officers restraining the 22-year-old and four others who apparently were involved in a fight on New Years day; some already have more than 500,000 views online and have been broadcast by numerous news outlets.

Protests have extended media coverage of this case, generating more controversy and damages costing up to $200,000 in Oakland.

It is very hard to imagine that the gag order is still relevant and also if it is still protecting the integrity of the case as it was intended to.

News media have covered the case extensively and both of the attorneys for the police officer and Mehserle want this order to be lifted.

Defense attorney Michael Rains said the public has seen his client in a negative light and they have not been able to address the public or the media in any way.

Both attorneys are unsatisfied by the judge’s order and have said that it “is breathtakingly broad and indeed is more expansive than orders that have been invalidated in other cases.”

The defense attorney has gone so far as to say that if Jacobson is so concerned about the repercussions if the order is lifted, he would have no problem with moving the case to another county.

The judge has denied the public of its First Amendment right to crucial information by not lifting the gag order.

This has been yet another source of discussion and controversy which adds to the saturation of the coverage on this case.

It is unimaginable to pretend that at this point this case has not been discussed or tainted in any way, because it has.

It is also impractical to maintain the gag order in effect when the public and the media have the right to know what happened and how from the source itself, not from grainy videos taken from cell phones and accounts of third parties that could be giving fictitious accounts of the actual facts.

This is not fair for the public, the defendant or the prosecutors.

This detains the free flow of information and, instead of helping the case, clearly obstructs the ability of the media and the public to obtain the facts of what happened that night.