January 23, 2013

Kennebunk prostitution jury pool quizzed in secret

The Press Herald files an objection with the court, saying the judge's decision violates the First and Sixth Amendments.

By Scott Dolan sdolan@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

ALFRED — Jury selection for the trial of one of the major defendants in the high-profile Kennebunk prostitution case was conducted behind closed doors Tuesday, with the public and the media barred from the proceedings.

click image to enlarge

Mark Strong and his attorney Daniel Lilley enter York County Superior Court in Alfred after returning from a lunch break on Tuesday.

Gregory Rec / Staff Photographer

click image to enlarge

Mark Strong Sr. listens to the judge during his arraignment at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland on Oct. 9, 2012. He has pleaded not guilty to 59 misdemeanors, including promotion of prostitution, violation of privacy and conspiracy to commit those misdemeanors.

Tim Greenway / Staff Photographer

Additional Photos Below

Related headlines

In a case that has drawn international attention, Mark Strong Sr. of Thomaston is accused of conspiring with Alexis Wright to run a one-woman prostitution business from her Zumba studio in Kennebunk.

Tuesday morning, judicial marshals led 145 prospective jurors into York County Superior Court at 9:30 a.m. The marshals told members of the media who gathered in the hallway that there was no room for them inside.

The jurors were then sent to the basement of the courthouse to complete a questionnaire.

The judge in the case, Justice Nancy Mills, had issued an order last week that said because the courtroom’s seating capacity is only 110, “when filled with prospective jurors, there is little, if any room for the public or the media.”

Mills met with prosecutors and Strong’s defense team in private Tuesday, leaving Strong to sit by himself in the courtroom for much of the afternoon.

Strong then left the courtroom, apparently through a back door, and a small number of potential jurors were brought up a back stairwell of the courthouse, rather than through the courtroom.

Each one was then brought individually to an undisclosed room to be questioned by the judge in the presence of Strong, his attorneys and the prosecutors. Neither the media nor the public was allowed in.

During the proceedings, an attorney for the Portland Press Herald hand-delivered a letter to the court’s criminal clerk’s office, objecting to the closure.

“It’s well settled that the public and the media have the First Amendment right to be there for jury selection,” said attorney Sigmund Schutz. “We understand and respect there are challenges for high-profile cases. But those are the cases that are the most important to have access.”

The Sixth Amendment establishes the right to a public trial, except in narrowly defined situations such as juvenile cases, rape cases or those involving sensitive or classified information. A judge can close a courtroom only after considering all potential alternatives, and then only in extreme circumstances.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties,” or by anyone else, on the principle that court proceedings should be open to protect the innocent and maintain the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.

“Public access to jury selection ensures accountability and oversight and makes sure jurors are selected fairly and impartially,” Schutz said. “Making sure the jury selection process isn’t tainted in any way is of vital importance.”

Schutz said closing jury selection to the public “isn’t completely out of the question,” but it can be done only in the most extreme circumstances, such as for national security or if a threat of violence against jurors exists.

Strong, 57, has pleaded not guilty to 59 misdemeanors, including promotion of prostitution, violation of privacy and conspiracy to commit those misdemeanors.

Wright, 30, of Wells, is scheduled to stand trial on 106 counts in May. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including promotion of prostitution, engaging in prostitution, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, tax offenses and receiving welfare benefits when ineligible.

Authorities allege that Wright kept meticulous customer records, with about 150 names, including some well-known people.

So far, 66 people have been charged with engaging a prostitute in connection with Wright. Prosecutors have put 18 of them on their list of witnesses for the trial, all of whom have pleaded guilty or been found guilty of the misdemeanor.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors


Additional Photos

click image to enlarge

Attorney Daniel Lilley, left, and his client Mark Strong enter York County Superior Court in Alfred after returning from a lunch break on Tuesday.

Gregory Rec / Staff Photographer

  


Further Discussion

Here at KJonline.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)