NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A Tennessee judge is currently deliberating on the potential public release of writings by a school shooter once the investigation is concluded. The case took a complex turn when parents of children at the Covenant School claimed legal ownership of the writings, asserting that they hold the copyright obtained from the shooter’s parents.
During a recent two-day hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court, eight attorneys addressed the issue but lacked expertise in copyright matters. The discussion around federal copyright protections and the Tennessee Public Records Act seemed to confuse the situation even further. In response, the judge, I’Ashea Myles, plans to outline specific questions for further consideration before ruling on the release of the writings.
Authorities have categorized the writings obtained during the investigation into the March 27, 2023, Covenant School shooting as public records. However, they have emphasized that the documents cannot be released until the investigation is complete. Various entities, including news outlets, a state senator, a gun-rights group, and a law enforcement nonprofit, have urged for immediate release arguing that the open investigation is merely a formality at this stage.
On the other hand, additional groups allowed to intervene in the case have lobbied against any release of the writings. Attorneys representing the Covenant parents, the school, and the church have united in arguing that the documents fall under Tennessee law protecting the privacy of school security-related information. They fear that releasing the writings could compromise the school’s security by inspiring copycat behavior.
The debate over the release of the writings further intensified as Eric Osborne, the parents’ attorney, emphasized that all children at Covenant School are victims protected under the Tennessee Constitution. Osborne argued that making the writings public could potentially harm the children and violate their rights. However, Judge Myles challenged the broad interpretation of the law, highlighting the need to balance victims’ rights with legal obligations.
As the hearing concluded, Judge Myles acknowledged the complexity of the decision-making process. Despite her personal emotions and concerns, Myles emphasized the importance of interpreting the law objectively and following legislative mandates. The ruling on the release of the writings remains pending as the court navigates the intricate legal and ethical considerations surrounding the case.