Update: A continuance has been granted until Thursday, May 31st, 2018.

Joseph DeAngelo appeared before Judge Michael Sweet in the Sacramento Superior Court today to fight a motion to unseal his arrest and search warrants.

The hearing, which started around 9:00 AM and lasted about an hour, was the first one since April to have news cameras allowed inside.

DeAngelo entered the courtroom and spent the entirety of the hearing on his feet inside a caged-in area on the right side of the courtroom. He stared straight ahead throughout the hearing, only conferring briefly with one of his attorneys after court had been adjourned.

The People argued for the release of the search and arrest warrants, citing the public’s right of access under the constitution and under statutory rights, as well as the right of a public trial.

Defense highlighted the sweeping scale of the case — over 100 articles and 16,000 internet articles published since DeAngelo’s arrest. Defense argued that releasing the documents in their full form could do more than influence potential jurors — he claimed that witness memories could be tainted by the information and noted that the investigation was still proceeding in private.

Judge Sweet clarified that the issue both sides were arguing was not the complete withholding of the documents, but rather how much to redact. The court discussed the redaction of personal information (witnesses, investigators, victims, and the defendant) in particular.

Judge Sweet also discussed the differentiation between the arrest/search affidavits themselves and the returns/results from those affidavits. An issue that he brought forth was the issue of sensitivity toward information in the warrants that pertained to crimes committed outside of Sacramento county, and asked if releasing evidence of crimes outside of the Maggiore murders could be prejudicial.

The People argued that the public’s right of access isn’t limited to what might be admitted at trial. Judge Sweet and the People both cited cases that established precedent, with Judge Sweet using precedent to explain that generally, the rights of the press are not greater than the rights of an individual. The People argued that the precedent that Judge Sweet cited would’ve been decided differently today because press access to court proceedings was still in its infancy in the mid 1970s when the case that he referred to was decided.

Judge Sweet explained that he did not want to make a hasty ruling on this matter, and that he wanted to examine the documents and entertain the proposed redactions in a granular way. The review would take place this morning.

He recessed court until around 12:00 noon. As it got closer to noon, word came down that court would start at 1:30 PM, and then it was pushed back to 2:15 PM. Around that time, it was announced that a continuance was granted on the issue until Thursday, May 31st, 2018.