Posted January 31, 2018 2:48 PM

Court error reveals name in Vegas shooting case

By Ken Ritter and Brian Melley
Associated Press writers

LAS VEGAS — A court error publicly revealed the name of a man identified as a person of interest in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Clark County District Judge Elissa Cadish acknowledged that a member of her court staff failed to black out the man’s name on one of 276 pages of documents released to news organizations including The Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

After the error was recognized, lawyers for the news organizations were told to return the documents. The attorney representing AP and other media did so, but the other lawyer had already transmitted the documents and the Review-Journal published Douglas Haig’s name online.

Cadish later ordered the document not be published without redactions, but she acknowledged she couldn’t order the newspaper to retract the name.

“The reality is, now that it is online, there is nothing I can do,” Cadish said.

The unsealed search warrants in the investigation of the Oct. 1 shooting that killed 58 people revealed Haig as a person of interest authorities spoke to after the shooting.

Haig told AP he sold ammunition to Stephen Craig Paddock and that he had been contacted earlier by investigators in the case.

A spokeswoman for the FBI in Las Vegas declined to comment and referred calls to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nevada. A spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor’s did not immediately respond to messages.

Reporters at the AP never received the document with Haig’s name, but the news organization used the name based on the Review-Journal’s reporting citing police documents.

Brian Barrett, AP’s assistant general counsel, said the news organization might have viewed it differently if reporters received the documents before the court asked them to be returned.

“Once truthful information is in the hands of journalists there are strong First Amendment protections that apply and would allow them to publish,” Barrett said.

Michael Parks, journalism professor at the University of Southern California, said if he were in his former position as editor of the Los Angeles Times, he might ask about the origin of documents but wouldn’t engage in prepublication censorship if the source was legitimate.

“You can’t unring the bell. ... It was a mistake, but it’s out,” Parks said. “Journalists are not in the business of suppressing news. ... We publish it.”

Melley reported from Los Angeles. Associated Press reporter Anita Snow contributed to this report from Mesa, Ariz.

You May Also Like
©2018 by Law Bulletin Media. Content on this site is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, or retransmitting of any copyright-protected material. The content is NOT WARRANTED as to quality, accuracy or completeness, but is believed to be accurate at the time of compilation. Websites for other organizations are referenced at this site; however, the Law Bulletin does not endorse or imply endorsement as to the content of these websites. By using this site you agree to the Terms, Conditions and Disclaimer. Law Bulletin Media values its customers and has a Privacy Policy for users of this website.