The Crime in Writing True Crime (Continued)

Another source told me that Warner had a "bootleg" copy of my book in her Yates file. My source had seen it there and had heard Warner say, "We don’t want to give that any publicity."

I phoned an attorney who advised me not to request the meeting with Judge Hill because, he suggested, the judge might ask me about my sources. Having learned from Vanessa Leggett, I wasn’t about to reveal my sources.

On Sunday, February 3, Russell Yates phoned and asked me to call his attorney, Edward Mallet, who had just recently found out about the judge’s "deal" with 48 Hours. I understood that Mallett wanted to encourage me to fight for my press credentials. Instead, I had already turned to the Center for Individual Freedom, which was working with St. Martin’s Press, to draft a new letter to the courts’ administration, explaining why I still needed press credentials despite the book being out. The book would require a post-trial update.

I also got the Austin Chronicle, a 20-year-old weekly newspaper with more than a quarter of a million readers, to request press credentials on my behalf. I have freelanced for them for several years. The Chronicle faxed the request that week. Also that week — once again through the grapevine — I heard about a meeting for the press covering the Yates trial. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 7 with Janet Warner presiding.

The Center for Individual Freedom advised me to attend the meeting so that my lack of attendance could not be used as an excuse to boot me out of the trial.

During the meeting, ABC field producer Gina Treadgold asked Warner if anyone had been denied credentials for the trial. Initially, Warner said no, then added, well, no one who had complied. Jack Thompson broke in and said they’d had a few problems with freelancers. He didn’t elaborate. Warner only said that "almost 50 people" and "right at 50 people" had been credentialed.

After the meeting, I went to Warner’s office and asked if her comments meant that I still had my press credentials. She asked whether I was covering the trial for the Austin Chronicle or St. Martin’s Press. I answered St. Martin’s. She replied that the situation was still being evaluated, Judge Hill would make the final decision, I would learn the decision the following day, and Time magazine had credentials, well, no, she didn’t know whether Time had even applied. Again, we were Texas polite with each other.

Doug Lee, the attorney for CIF phoned Warner that same day and asked her many of the same questions. Lee later wrote, "Ms. Warner admitted that she had revoked the credentials because the book had been published. She also noted that the book had been published at a ‘sensitive time.’ Ms. Warner then told Mr. Lee that a decision as to the reinstatement of the credentials had not yet been made but that things were ‘looking better’ in light of Ms. Spencer’s statement that she would be representing St. Martin’s. Ms. Warner explained that the duplicate requests for credentials from St. Martin’s and the Austin Chronicle had caused some confusion in her office, primarily because she never had heard of the Chronicle and did not know whether the letter was ‘legitimate.’"

She also told Lee that I would know the results the next day and there was nothing else I needed to do get the credentials. "…A media representative had needed only to submit a request on the media company’s letterhead." And she said that 50 media seats had been filled since January 4.

I phoned Warner the next day. She did not take or return my call, despite the fact that I was told she would call me "right back." Someone who happened to be in Warner’s office when I phoned told me that Warner "made a face" at the mention of my name. So much for Texas politeness.

Doug Lee also phoned the court administrator’s office; he did not get through to Warner or Jack Thompson.

Monday, February 11, Lee phoned again on my behalf and was referred to Debra Seldon, a Harris County attorney. As Lee wrote in a motion we were finally forced to file later that week, "In this conversation, Ms. Seldon was not specific about whether Plaintiff’s credentials had been reinstated. According to Ms. Seldon, credential requests had been denied to two or three persons who had not timely submitted the information requested by the Court and Plaintiff could be a part of that group. Ms. Seldon further stated that, if Plaintiff had been granted credentials, ‘she would know that by now.’ Ms. Seldon also said there was no right or opportunity to appeal the denial of media credentials."

By that same February 11, 2002, a story on Janet Warner and the Yates case had been published in the Houston Chronicle. The story reported that all 50 allotted seats for the media had been "snapped up" before January 4. "Since I’ve been involved in this, I have the utmost respect for school teachers," Warner was quoted as saying. "It’s like keeping your little classroom together and watching to make sure everybody’s behaving. I don’t make many friends with the media when we come around to this."

Warner spoke in the article about being called "Grumpina" by the media during the trial of Yolanda Saldivar, the woman who killed Tejano singer Selena. "People would line up at 4 a.m. at the Family Law Center across the street with their rosaries, praying for a seat," the Chronicle quoted Warner.

February 13, 2002, Doug Lee, on my behalf, formally requested that Judge Hill reinstate my press credentials. The request was refused.

Valentine’s Day 2002, the Center for Individual Freedom helped me sue Judge Hill and Janet Warner in federal court, charging that my First Amendment rights had been violated. We moved for a temporary restraining order, which would place me in the Yates trial press pool. Suddenly, a middle of the night fax was sent telling me that I could attend the trial, but only as a spectator.

The following day, we appeared in federal court for an emergency hearing. An absent Judge Hill was represented by a man on speakerphone from the State’s attorney general’s office in Austin. The courtroom had a surreal "Charlie’s Angels" feel to it. The federal judge announced that she would not be hearing evidence.

The defense then argued that my rejection was based solely on procedure. I had not followed procedure because my letter was on my "personal" letterhead, not "the agency’s." It was my business letterhead, not personal. And to an author, "agency" letterhead refers to a literary agent’s letterhead, not a publisher’s.

Additionally, on January 4 when Janet Warner and I chit-chatted and she told me I had a seat for "every day" of the trial, she did not mention that I had failed to follow procedure. If she had, I would have had time to make corrections and follow procedure. Nor did she mention my alleged procedural error on the message she left on my machine on January 30. "I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to honor this due to the fact that Breaking Point has already been published and is on the rack…" was her only complaint.

The defense entered as evidence, despite the fact the judge said she wasn’t taking evidence, other requests for credentials that had been denied — Time magazine, Good Morning America, ABC World News, Oprah’s O magazine on behalf of freelance writer Suzanne O’Malley, and Salon, also on behalf of O’Malley. An amazing coincidence, that rejected list, limited only to those who Judge Hill apparently believed were part of Rusty Yates public relations conspiracy.

The defense claimed that the credentials had been rejected because the requests were submitted after the January 4 deadline. O magazine’s request was clearly dated January 2, prior to the deadline. It was rejected, said a note scribbled on the page, because it was signed by O’Malley, not an O staffer.

When the defense discussed the rules for submitting credential requests, they were void of any reference stating who had to sign the request. The judge did not pick up on that. She did make a seemingly annoyed observation that my request letter was chatty, insinuating that because of that it was unprofessional and easily dismissed. I’ve sworn off honey.

There was an extensive discussion about how the rules for submission were disseminated to the applicants — AP news wire and the district courts’ website, we were told. As a freelancer, I don’t have access to AP news wire. And in fact, I talked with staff reporters for Houston media and freelancers who didn’t know about the court’s website. Indeed, I received emails from other freelancers telling me they had missed the application deadline because they did not know about it. So much for AP news wire and the courts’ website getting any message to the press.

The judge asked the defense about my chances of getting into the trial as a spectator. Janet Warner stated that in her many, many years of working for the court she had never seen a trial where spectators couldn’t get in — despite the fact that she’d been quoted just days before in the Houston Chronicle that spectators had been "praying" to get in to the Selena trial.

The judge asked the defense about how many spectators attended the Yates competency hearing. Warner answered 20 to 30. No one mentioned that the hearing had been held the week after September 11, a week when most Americans were staying safely tucked in their homes. Certainly attendance that week could not have been a predicator of the following February.

However, that information would have only been provided by the plaintiff — me. I was not allowed to submit evidence.

The judge asked about irreparable damages to me and mentioned that I could get the trial transcript. I had tried to obtain the court transcript for the Yates competency trial. But the court wanted approximately $5400 for that one week trial, payment upfront and delivery three weeks later. As a freelancer, all expenses come out of my pocket, and I could not afford $5400 times four weeks, the expected length of the actual Yates trial. In fact, that price would far exceed the book’s entire advance.

The judge asked what harm there would be if I had to get to court very early each day to get a seat. It would cost me in book sales. I was already scheduled to do early morning TV and radio to promote Breaking Point. Getting to court early would force me to cancel many appearances. I didn’t get the opportunity to say that either.

I desperately wanted to. I knew the defense would resort to the cliché that I had sued for the PR. I wanted to submit my PR schedule to prove that I didn’t need a lawsuit to sell my book. I was already turning down requests.

Sure enough, as soon as the judge denied my request for a temporary restraining order, and the defense attorneys hit the street, they claimed that I had sued only for the PR.

The defense also claimed that neither Judge Hill nor Warner had read Breaking Point — despite Hill repeatedly referencing a portion of the book to others, Warner knowing that she was acknowledged in it, and Warner being seen with an illegal, bootleg copy of the book in her Yates file.

That weekend, I heard rumor that spectators had to have "tickets" to get into the Yates trial — a little factoid the defense never mentioned to the federal judge.

The following Monday morning, the first day of the trial, I did get one of those "tickets" and did get in, on the back row. I could not hear. I could not see. Judge Hill used her microphone only when she was berating the press corps. Otherwise, she turned it off and pushed it away.