By PHYLLIS ZORN

Staff writer

A Wichita attorney representing six newspapers and eight broadcasters filed documents Tuesday opposing former Police Chief Gideon Cody’s attempt to ban cameras from his trial on felony charges brought against him.

He wrote that White’s arguments against allowing audio and video coverage already had been rejected in court cases.

“The irony of this defendant seeking to limit media access in this case is striking,” attorney Lyndon Vix says in his motion. “The genesis of the case was defendant’s decision to go to the war with a member of the media.

“Now, when he is called to at least partially account for his actions, he wants the media to have less access to his proceedings than they would have in any other defendant’s case.

“If there was ever a defendant who was not entitled to special consideration in this regard, it is Gideon Cody. His case should be treated like any other and the routine request for electronic access to the courtroom should be granted.”

Cody, who led a raid Aug. 11, 2023, raid on the Marion County Record and the homes of its publishers and city councilwoman Ruth Herbel was charged a year and a day later with interference with judicial process.

His lawyer, Brian White, filed an objection Aug. 20 to media outlets’ requests to be allowed to use cameras and recording devices during hearings.

White contended that allowing cameras inside the courtroom would have “a prejudicial impact on a fair trial,” would be disruptive, would influence and intimidate witnesses and members of the jury, and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

White wrote that he “already has grave concerns regarding the ability to obtain a fair trial” given the publication of a 124-page press release outlining special prosecutors’ case against Cody.

“Allowing recordings of the proceedings will only increase the likelihood that Mr. Cody will not receive a fair trial,” White wrote.

However, in a 15-page motion filed Tuesday, Vix wrote that the case against Cody already had garnered worldwide media coverage.

“This criminal prosecution, and the events which led to it, are matters of significant public concern,” Vix wrote. “By opposing defendant’s attempt to limit access to information, the media seeks to protect their own First Amendment right to gather information, as well as the public’s right to receive that information.”

Although White requested a court hearing and argument over the issue of cameras in the courtroom, no hearing date has been set.