News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

David Robinson, News Little Rock Bureau

LITTLE ROCK -- Mary Lee Orsini, serving life without parole for the murder of her lawyer's wife, was wrongly denied a Circuit Court hearing on her 1997 Freedom of Information Act request, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Orsini, 52, had requested incident reports by corrections officers after she was disciplined for belligerence toward a Department of Correction guard.

Orsini, convicted in Pulaski County in the 1982 death of Alice McArthur, contends the information was vital to her defense at the 1997 disciplinary hearing.

The high court's ruling reverses the Jefferson County Circuit Court decision that denied Orsini's hearing request, and it orders that a hearing be conducted.

"Basically, my understanding is it is not a ruling on the FOI question," said Dina Tyler, prison spokesman. "It is a ruling on the court hearing. The Circuit Court should have held a hearing to answer the question of the FOI. I'm sure the court will set a hearing, will hold a hearing and will settle the issue."

Officer Felicia Brothers, a witness, said in a statement five days later that Hampton may have intentionally aggravated Orsini.

Orsini lost two weeks of privileges as a result of Hampton's charge. Orsini then began trying to obtain copies of Brothers' written reports.

She made FOI requests to Larry Norris, department director, and Robert Clark, internal affairs/disciplinary administrator for the department. Norris never responded, and Clark denied the request but said Orsini could review the records by requesting them from the unit record supervisor.

The record supervisor, however, denied the request, telling Orsini that the records were considered, "due to disciplinaries, not a part of FOIA."

She appealed to Jefferson County Circuit Court and asked for Brothers' reports and other documents used to affirm her discipline. After 10 months, the circuit court dismissed the Orsini appeal for failure to state a claim and noted that "defendants have furnished plaintiff with the documents required."

The Supreme Court said the state's brief indicates that Orsini did not get the documents. Instead, the court said, the state contends the reports were denied because they contained confidential and sensitive information and were covered by a specific FOI exemption.

"We hold that a hearing is required ... for the circuit court to determine" if the requested documents qualify for exemption as sensitive or confidential information, the court said.

The Supreme Court also noted that, in a 1993 case, it had concluded that an inmate's file met the definition of a public record because it was required to be kept by the director of the department.

The high court, citing a past ruling, also said that "we narrowly construe exceptions to the FOIA to counterbalance the self-protective instincts of the government bureaucracy."