Two media outlets were held in criminal contempt for publishing photos of witnesses.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) – The state Supreme Court has stayed a trial on whether two media outlets should be held in criminal contempt for publishing and broadcasting photos of witnesses in a high-profile murder trial.

The high court on Friday granted a petition filed by The Providence Journal and WLNE-TV. According to The Journal, the court said it would intervene and review the case at this point because it has “serious reservations regarding the constitutionality” of the pretrial order entered by Superior Court Judge William Dimitri Jr. restricting media coverage of Charles Pona’s trial.

Pona was found guilty last November of murder in the death of 15-year-old Jennifer Rivera. The order was issued by Dimitri before Pona’s trial began, at the request of Attorney General Patrick Lynch.

It prohibited the media, as a condition of being allowed to cover the trial, from photographing or showing any pictures of the state’s witnesses. It also banned the publication of the current address or place of employment of all prosecution witnesses and their family members.

Lynch said he asked for the restrictive order because prosecutors were concerned for the safety of witnesses. Rivera was gunned down outside her home in Providence the day before Pona was to go on trial for the murder of someone else. Rivera was scheduled to testify in that case.

Dimitri said Pona’s lawyer, James Ruggiero, had no objection to the restrictive order.

During the trial, The Journal published a file photograph of Miguel Perez, one of the witnesses who testified against Pona which was taken in December 2001 in another court proceeding.

WLNE-TV recorded another state’s witness, Dennis Fullen, as he testified at Pona’s trial on Nov. 4 and then televised the footage. The station also used file footage of Perez.

After the trial, Lynch filed papers asking that the two media outlets be held in criminal contempt for violating Dimitri’s pretrial order. But Joseph Cavanagh Jr., a lawyer for The Journal and Channel 6, claimed that Dimitri’s order was patently unconstitutional.

Cavanagh also claims that Dimitri’s order was procedurally flawed because the media was not notified of the restrictive order after it was issued and had no opportunity to be heard prior to it being issued.

Cavanagh said the order was not placed in the court file until after Pona’s trial was over and until after Lynch filed a motion asking that the media be held in contempt.

The high court indicated it needs more information before it can decide the issues and instructed Dimitri to hold a hearing to answer several questions.

The court said it wants to know if The Journal and Channel 6 received any notice of Lynch’s motion for restrictions on coverage and other court proceedings that led to Dimitri’s Oct. 22 order.

It also asked if the two media outlets or any of their representatives were in court for proceedings leading up to the issuance of Dimitri’s order, whether The Journal and Channel 6 received notice of Dimitri’s order after he issued it, and if not, how they learned of it.

The Supreme Court said it would defer further proceedings in the case pending Dimitri’s findings and the transmittal of the transcript of the hearing to the high court.

AP-ES-01-10-04 1205EST