Mr. Novak

when a particular person did or did not become a potential witness in the eyes of that party.

That doesn't make it impossible for the state to comply with the order.

It just means that the state needs to be thinking along the way about who its witnesses may be.

And that's why in our papers we refer to it as a...

potential lay witness.

Because we believe that the court intended it to go beyond members of the prosecution team, which are law enforcement officers, retained experts, retained consultants.

And we don't believe that that creates an enforcement problem.

We don't think it creates a compliance problem.

We noted in our papers and I'll emphasize here again that the court's order actually places responsibilities on defense counsel that the rules don't.

The rules have special guidelines for the prosecution and the court has expanded that to include the defense and we don't have a problem with that.

I also think that

the standard that the state is suggesting for when a potential lay witness, as we've defined that in our papers, may make public statements that violate the court's order.

The best standard is actually the one that we believe the court should look to, which is the standard

set by the 10th Circuit.

Because as the state points out, it may be that there isn't any Utah law on this issue.

So it seems to me that the closest source of authority on this constitutional question is going to be the 10th Circuit.

And that's the case United States versus Tijerina.

And I'll spell it.

It's T-I-J-E-R-I-N-A.

412 fed second 661 10th Circuit 1969 where the court says that The constitutional balance between the First Amendment rights of a non-attorney participant and the defendants right to a fair trial are properly balanced where extrajudicial statements present a reasonable likelihood of