Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that the State has fully investigated its options in regards to protecting the privacy of the victim and his family if the case were to proceed to trial. The Court recognizes that the press and the general public have a constitutional right of access to criminal trials. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603-05 (1982),Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980). However, that right is not absolute, and it may be appropriate to restrict access in order to safeguard the well-being of a minor victim. See Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 606-09, see also Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45-48 (1984). Specifically, it very well may be appropriate to exclude the electronic media during the victim's testimony. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.170(a), Chavez v. State, 832 So.2d 730, 758-59 (Fla. 2002), State v. Palm Beach Newspapers, 395 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1981), In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370 So.2d 764, 779 (Fla. 1979). Indeed it would be necessary for the Court to take certain precautions to ensure that the Defendant receives her constitutional right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. 555, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 563-65 (1976), Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 357-62 (1966). But the Court is aware that the victim does not have a constitutionally recognized right of privacy in the context of a judicial proceeding, which is a public event that by its very nature denies certain aspects of privacy. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370 So.2d at 779.

It is the opinion of this Court that accepting the proposed plea agreement would undermine the credibility of this Court, and the criminal justice system as a whole, and would erode public confidence in our schools. Accepting the proposed plea agreement would likewise send the message that if enough publicity is generated, and the media's interest continues long enough, and because of that interest the victim does not wish to testify, a defendant can avoid an appropriate sentence. Quite frankly, if the allegations against the Defendant are true, the agreed-upon sentence shocks the conscience of this Court. It is, therefore,

ORDERED: The proposed below guidelines plea agreement is hereby rejected.
ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2006 at Ocala, Marion County, Florida.

HALE R. STANCIL,
Circuit Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been provided by U.S. Mail-Inter-Office Mail this 21st day of March, 2006 to the following:

John M. Fitzgibbons, Esquire
Attorney for the Defendant
Tampa Theatre Building, Suite 700
707 North Franklin Street
Tampa, Florida 33602-4441
Stacy M. Youmans, Esquire
Richard D. Ridgway, Esquire
Office of the State Attorney
(by Inter-Office Mail)

Sue Starling, Judicial Assistant
1. The Hillsborough County plea agreement was apparently conditioned upon this Court's acceptance of a similar plea agreement. In other words, if the proposed plea agreement were rejected by this Court, the Defendant would have the right to withdraw her plea to the charges in Hillsborough County and proceed to trial. However, this Court was not a party to plea negotiations in Hillsborough County and was not apprised of the plea agreement in Hillsborough County until the December 9, 2005 pre-trial-status conference.
2. The Court recognizes that there are actually two minor victims in this case, M.M. and B.B. However, the majority of the testimony and argument relates only to victim M.M.
State vs. Lafave 04-2454-CF-A-Z

[an error occurred while processing this directive]