Who would allow the autopsy photo to be shown in court???

  • 3 Replies
  • 884 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2good2btrue

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • FORGIVENESS IS THE KEY TO YOUR HAPPINESS
  • Posts: 4210
    • Show only replies by 2good2btrue
What I'm getting at is that death photos and autopsy photos are rarely shown in court infront of the families.....the usual procedure is (if needed) to present each Juror with a photo instead...

How the hell would Katherine (who now legally is part of the estate) allow these photos to be shown in front of them...It would have just been too painful and traumatic don't you think???
Do you lose the right to privacy when you die?

FOIA and the Privacy Rights of the Deceased
The Federal Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) do a fair job of protecting people's privacy, but there's one law that comes into direct conflict with them: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This law is intended to create government transparency, making it harder for government officials to keep secrets from the citizens they serve. Sometimes, someone files a FOIA request, and the government has to decide if releasing the information violates someone's privacy.

There are several exemptions to FOIA that the government can invoke to avoid releasing information. One allows the government to deny a FOIA request if the request includes "personnel and medical files and similar files that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This allows the government to tread the line legally between FOIA, HIPAA and the Federal Privacy Act in most cases.That covers the privacy rights of living people, but what happens after death? The Privacy Act is very clear -- it doesn't apply to dead people. Once you die, your information is no longer protected under that law. However, court precedents have shown that the privacy concerns of surviving family members also weigh on the decision to release information via FOIA. When these cases go to court, judges have ruled against FOIA requests in cases where the release of death-scene photos, autopsy photos or coroner's reports would cause anguish and harm to the deceased person's family. They may allow the information to be released if they feel the information itself is harmless or if many years have passed since the death in question.HIPAA is just the opposite -- the protection of a person's privacy extends indefinitely, even after death. When someone dies, control over his or her estate passes either to a family member or another executor. The power to make decisions related to medical privacy -- including the ability to give permission for information-sharing under HIPAA -- is transferred as well.

There are a few famous cases that helped establish this area of law in the U.S. One of the most well-known is the case of Vincent Foster, a lawyerwho worked for the Clinton administration before committing suicide in 1993. Photographs of the scene where Foster's body was found weren't made public. As a result, several conspiracy theorists suspected a cover-up that involved the Clintons, so they made FOIA requests for the photos. The case, National Records and Archives Administration v. Favish, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled unanimously in favor of the government -- and Foster's privacy.

Love to know your thoughts....

HowStuffWorks "FOIA and the Privacy Rights of the Deceased"

A similar case played out after the death of popular race car driver Dale Earnhardt. A Florida newspaper tried to get access to the autopsy photos, but Florida passed a law banning their release. The lower courts decided against the newspaper, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Court: Officials can be sued for releasing autopsy photos  

SAN DIEGO — A federal appeals court has ruled in a San Diego case that family members have a constitutional right to keep private the autopsy photos of relatives and can sue government officials who release those photos to the news media.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first of its kind to establish a federal privacy right over autopsy photos of a deceased loved one.
But the ruling, released Tuesday, was mixed news for Brenda Marsh, who sued San Diego County over the release of autopsy photos of her 2-year-old son, Phillip Buell, by a retired prosecutor. A San Diego federal court judge dismissed Marsh’s suit, and the appeals court upheld that ruling.

The court said that the retired prosecutor, Jay Coulter, had immunity for releasing the photos in 2006 because the privacy right for autopsy photos was not clearly established at that time.

Phillip died in 1983, and prosecutors soon charged Kenneth Marsh, Brenda’s boyfriend at the time, with killing him. He was convicted of murdering Phillip and served 21 years in prison. In 2006, new evidence surfaced that the boy died in an accident. Marsh’s conviction was then set aside and he was released from prison.

The state later paid him $756,000 from a fund for those wrongly convicted. Around that time, Coulter — who by then had retired — sent a package of materials to a newspaper and television station outlining the evidence he said supported Marsh’s guilt. A photo of Phillip from the autopsy, which Coulter had copied before leaving the District Attorney’s Office, was included.

Donnie Cox, the lawyer for Brenda, said his client was very upset that the photo had been distributed and had spoken of one day having “Phillip’s Law” to ban such a move.

“We’re gratified the court found there is a constitutionally protected right here,” Cox said.

He said the court also found that the mother’s claims that her rights under California law are still viable, and he planned to seek damages on that in state court.

Deborah McCarthy, a lawyer for the county, said that Coulter did not violate that law and the county will argue that in state court.

Court: Officials can be sued for releasing autopsy photos | UTSanDiego.com


What do you all think about this ??  (sorry if this has been discussed before)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 09:42:29 AM by 2good2btrue »

Offline bec

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Minion Reserve
  • Posts: 6387
    • Show only replies by bec
    • Exploring The Hoax
Well MJ isn't dead so it's not illegal.

Lol.

It's a neat fact, thanks for posting the info, 2good.
Are you entertained?

Offline blankie

  • *
  • Registered users
  • Hoaxer
  • It's all for L.O.V.E.
  • Posts: 2350
    • Show only replies by blankie
Well MJ isn't dead so it's not illegal.

Lol.

It's a neat fact, thanks for posting the info, 2good.



 :bearhug: :icon_geek:
LOVE YOU MORE

Offline 2good2btrue

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • FORGIVENESS IS THE KEY TO YOUR HAPPINESS
  • Posts: 4210
    • Show only replies by 2good2btrue
Remember Conrad Murray was protesting about not showing autopsy photos in the court??  Well, maybe he was dropping  us a HINT that this is not a real court...... :icon_e_wink:
Because it breaches all the legalities and I can't see Katherine saying that it is an important piece of information and that it would be beneficial showing her dead son to everyone in court to help her case ......things that make you go hmmmmmmm

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal