Hide Transcript Show Transcript

WHY SHOULD THE BILLIONAIRE GET SPECIAL TREATMENT? ROBERT KRAFT’S ATTORNEYS SAY RELEASING VIDEO OF THE OWNER INSIDE THE ORCHIDS OF ASIA WIKIPEDIA IMPEDE HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND VIOLATE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. >> THAT IS NO NEED TO ACTUALLY SEE THE VIDEO UNLESS YOU HAVE A CURIOUS MIS --. INTEREST -- PURIENT INTEREST. TERACE: STASH -- >> THIS IS, ACCORDING TO THE STATE, EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. ACCORDING TO MR. CRAFT -- KRAFT , IT IS A SITUATION OVERREACHING TO INVADE HIS PRIVACY. THE PUBLIC OBVIOUSLY HAS A GREAT INTEREST IN KNOWING THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> IRREPARABLE HARM TO MR. KRAFT PRIOR TO YOU HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED BY THE POLICE AND BY THE STATE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY CATASTROPHIC. TERRI: KRAFT’S ATTORNEYS SAY IT WAS OBTAINED ILLEGALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE RESEARCHING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. IN COURT THEY SAID THIS. >> WE HAVE DONE ARE DUE DILIGENCE. THERE IS NO HUMAN TRAFFICKING THAT ARISES OUT OF THIS INVESTIGATION. TERRI: INFURIATING KRAFT’S ATTORNEYS, THEY SAID HE WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING. WAS IT REALLY PART OF THE SEARCH AFFIDAVIT? >> IT ABSOLUTELY WAS

Advertisement Robert Kraft attorneys have seen spa video, tell judge it's 'basically porn' Attorneys fight public release of video they say has nothing but prurient interest Share Shares Copy Link Copy

Prosecutors revealed in court they have already let Robert Kraft’s attorneys see the video those attorneys are fighting to suppress, and after seeing them, Kraft’s attorneys told the judge they are “basically pornography.”During a hearing to decide whether a multitude of media organizations can intervene in the case, which was quickly granted, both sides squared off on whether Kraft’s right to privacy trumped the public’s right to access public records.William Burck argued that releasing the video of the New England Patriots owner inside the Orchids of Asia Day Spa would impede his right to a fair trial and violate his constitutional right to privacy.“What is the interest the public has in seeing it? It’s basically pornography, Your Honor,” said Burck.Media attorneys fired back that the public has a huge interest in knowing about possible prostitution going on in their community, and since Kraft is claiming police obtained the video illegally, the public has a right to see if that’s true, too.“This is, according to the state, evidence of a crime, and according to Mr. Kraft, it’s a situation where there has been overreaching by the state to invade his privacy. And the nub of it is, which is correct? The public obviously has a great interest in knowing the answer to that,” said media attorney Martin Reeder.“The irreparable harm that will happen to Mr. Kraft if that video is released prior to you even having the opportunity to decide if it was legally obtained by the police and by the state will be absolutely catastrophic,” Burck told the judge.Kraft’s attorneys claim the video was obtained illegally because they said Jupiter police asked for a search warrant claiming they were investigating a possible case of human trafficking.But in court, prosecutor Greg Kridos said they wanted to make it clear:“We’ve vetted this case. We’ve done our due diligence. There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation.”Kraft’s attorneys seemed surprised and afterward said that pronouncement should not have been made. “They shouldn’t have said that,” said Alex Spiro as the team left the courtroom, maintaining that human trafficking “absolutely” was a huge part of the police’s affidavit to get the hidden camera search warrant.Media attorneys also argued that as a criminal defendant, Kraft has no right to privacy while committing a crime.The judge will take additional written arguments from both sides and said he would issue an order next week. There is another hearing scheduled in two weeks.