Print Story
E-mail StoryJudge: Unseal Brothers' records
This story originally appeared September 6, 2003
| Thursday, Feb 15 2007 4:10 PM
Last Updated: Thursday, Feb 15 2007 4:10 PM
A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that school district records regarding allegations of sexual misconduct, violence and threats of violence by Fremont School Vice Principal Vincent Brothers should be released to The Californian.
Brothers Trial E-mail Alerts
Stay up-to-date with the latest developments in the Vincent Brothers mass-murder trial.Sign up for the Brothers trial e-mail alerts
The Bakersfield City School District had sought to keep secret the personnel complaint and investigation it spawned. The Californian reponded by filing suit July 24 under provisions of the California Public Records Act.
A second court hearing Friday in which The Californian asked another judge to unseal search warrants served by police in the Brothers case ended without a ruling. Judge Charles McNutt is expected to rule next week.
Brothers is the only person police have named as a suspect in the slaying of his wife, three children and mother-in-law. The five were found shot and stabbed to death in their central Bakersfield home July 8.
Judge Kenneth Twisselman II said the BCSD records regarding a February 1996 complaint met the test for release as public documents, but noted he was not ruling on the truth of the allegations against Brothers.
"The court's goal here is to further the public's interest, to be able to know how their public agencies address complaints of this nature," Twisselman said.
When Fremont parent Aarica Kitchen was told about the ruling and the 1996 allegations, she didn't want to pass judgment on Brothers, but was pleased the records were ordered released.
"Oh my goodness. Of course I think every parent would want to know that," Kitchen said. "I think as the parents, we should know. These are our children that he's around."
Brothers has been put on indefinite paid leave since the slayings.
The district has insisted that Brothers was never officially disciplined at any time. But the semester following the 1996 complaint, Brothers was transferred from Emerson Middle School to Fremont School, an elementary campus.
BCSD attorney Sue Ann Salmon Evans said the privacy rights of district employees could be diminished by Twisselman's decision.
"I'm surprised by the ruling. I'm concerned about the implications," she said.
Evans said she would talk to district officials about the possibility of appealing.
"We believe the law is clear. Personnel records are private," Evans said. "The fact of the matter is, Mr. Brothers is the center of attention because of a tragic event, but the district would take this position with any employee."
The Californian's attorney, Thomas Burke, said Twisselman recognized the value of the public knowing about such allegations.
"What is the district hiding? The district's position that it needs to protect its employees to this degree abandons any hope that the public will know what it's doing," Burke said.
The records remain under seal for now until names of the alleged victim or victims and witnesses are blacked out and the district decides whether to appeal the ruling. A hearing on those matters is scheduled for Sept. 17.
The victims of the slayings were Brothers' wife Joanie Harper, 39; their children Marques, 4, Lyndsey, 2, and Marshall, 6 weeks; and Joanie's mother, Earnestine Harper, 70.
After their bodies were found, a source told The Californian that Brothers had a serious sexual misconduct complaint filed against him just before being transferred to Fremont. The Californian sent the school district a public records request on July 9 seeking Brothers' work history, resume, complaints lodged against him and his disciplinary record.
The district maintained that it had no records that were required to be released. After the paper filed suit, one of its lawyers said there were no disciplinary records but would not confirm the existence of other records.
Two other complaints filed against Brothers during his 14-year career with BCSD will be kept confidential because they were not of a substantial nature or were not well-founded, Twisselman ruled.
Californian Executive Editor Mike Jenner said he was pleased with Friday's ruling and that the school district should be concerned not only about the privacy of its employees but the welfare of students and employees.
"Citizens have a right to know how their school district investigates and acts in managing its employees," Jenner said.
In the second hearing Friday, another judge said he needed a few days to decide if search warrant records related to the Harper murder case should be unsealed and released to the public.
Judge McNutt, one of the judges who signed and sealed the search warrant returns, said he needed more time to consider the issue before issuing a ruling.
The Californian filed a motion to unseal search warrant returns after learning several warrants had been signed and sealed but had not been filed in court.
Burke argued that the documents are normally filed with the court and considered judicial documents within 10 days of being served. Police officials have said the records were held at headquarters.
Burke argued that no public hearing was held when the records were sealed, which is required by law. There should be specific reasons stated on the records if records are sealed, he said.
Portions not lawfully considered confidential should be released, Burke said.
Only one of about a dozen of the warrants has been returned and filed with the court. Law enforcement officials contend the returned warrant was mistakenly released.
McNutt said he had the authority to order the records to be held anywhere that was secure, confidential, and accessible to court personnel.
Deputy City Attorney Virginia Gennaro and District Attorney Ed Jagels argued that the warrants are not public court records because the investigation is ongoing.
Gennaro argued that Bakersfield police have handled other cases in this way and the department is entitled to keep the records. She argued that giving specific reasons for sealing the records would reveal confidential information.
Jagels said that releasing the documents could devastate the case by letting a suspect, or the people trying to protect the suspect, know what to lie about or to set up an alibi.
Releasing pieces of information was not realistic because even police may not know what could potentially be crucial to the investigation, Jagels said.
Outside the courtroom, Jagels blasted The Californian, saying the newspaper was concerned about scooping the competition no matter how it affected the investigation.
"If this became law there would literally be hundreds of investigations that would be stifled," Jagels said. "There is also an issue of a fair trial."
Burke said the issue is keeping judicial records open to the public. The Californian is not asking for information about the investigation that is considered confidential by law, Burke said.
"It seems the school district and district attorney are reading from the same script: 'keep it secret,'" Burke said.