NASHVILLE – A gag order barring court officials from discussing the trial of Mark Bowling was ordered by an N.C. Superior Court judge Wednesday.
Dozens of news stories have been published during the last several months about Bowling, a former Rocky Mount funeral home director accused of conspiring to kill his wife last year.
Given the intense public interest, Bowling's attorneys asked last fall that all pretrial hearings be closed to the media and public, for all court records in the case to be sealed until the start of the trial and that no cameras be allowed in court during the trial.
Bowling's defense team of Tommy Moore and Tom Sallenger, along with Assistant District Attorney Keith Werner, collaborated to develop a watered-down version of that motion Wednesday.
Both parties submitted requests that sought to limit extra-judicial comments from court officials and people directly connected to the case.
N.C. Superior Court Judge Quentin Sumner approved a joint version of both motions that will disallow anyone connected to the trial from talking about the case outside the courtroom.
"The case will not be tried in the press," Sumner said. "It will be tried in the courtroom."
Michael J. Tadych, an attorney for several news organizations including the Telegram, objected to any restrictions on media access.
Tadych, who urged Sumner to deny the motions all together, was at least somewhat pleased with Sumner's ruling. He will be interested to see what the final version of the combined motion looks like, Tadych said.
"(Sumner) clearly acknowledged that the press has a right to be there," said Tadych, who specializes in First Amendment cases. "He also acknowledged that the press has the right to attend hearings and to ask any questions to anybody they want. (Officials) may not be allowed to answer those questions, however, based on what was said today.
"It's not over, though. The devil will be in the details."
Sumner, agreeing with the defense and prosecution, said that the media should not be granted access to sensitive trial information. He essentially ruled that court personnel and attorneys could answer questions but could not talk about potential evidence.
