Judge: Privacy determined case by case

PHOENIX — The wife of former Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Scott Schoeneweis died of an overdose of cocaine and lidocaine, a pain killer, the state Court of Appeals revealed Tuesday.

The disclosure came in the lawsuit brought by Schoeneweis to block Maricopa County officials from making their findings public about the situation surrounding the May 20 death of his wife, Gabrielle. She was found unconscious by the couple's 14-year-old daughter at the family home in Fountain Hills and pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.

In writing the unanimous appellate decision, Judge Peter Swann said death certificates issued by medical examiners, while public records, are not subject to public scrutiny.

Swann said, though, the question of whether other documents related to the case can be made public, including the autopsy report and photos, must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with a trial judge reviewing the information in chambers, out of public view. He said factors that trial judge must weigh include privacy concerns of survivors versus the public interest.

And Swann specifically refused to conclude that the fact this case involves the wife of a prominent sports figure somehow tilts in favor of public disclosure.

"The 'public interest' is not synonymous with 'public curiosity,'' the judge wrote. He said the judgments of whether certain documents should become public "are not altered by the relative fame or obscurity of those involved.''

But the judges, without sending this case back to the trial court for review, decided on their own to publicly disclose the overdose as the cause of the wife's death. And the court, in its ruling, also revealed that her cocaine use "may have caused harm to another person'' who is not identified in the record.

Tuesday's appellate ruling come after a probate judge in Maricopa County rejected the petition of Scott Schoeneweis, who had been on a one-year contract with the Diamondbacks filed for free agency last month, to seal his wife's death certificate and any other documents pertaining to her death.

That judge, without reviewing the records, rejected the plea, saying while she was sympathetic to the husband's privacy concerns, "personal concerns do not constitute grounds to seal or redact public documents.''

Swann said Arizona law concludes that anything record a public official is required to produce or serves as a record of something done is public.

He said that makes the autopsy report public, as the law requires medical examiners to investigate and report on deaths. So too, Swann said, are the photos taken during the autopsy as well as related investigative materials including summaries of statements made by witnesses and photographs of the of the scene.

Similarly, Swann said, the actual death certificate also is a public record.

But Swann said that doesn't necessarily mean public disclosure.

"Public records are not available for disclosure when they are made confidential by statute, when the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by privacy concerns, or when the right to disclosure is outweighed by the best interests of the state,'' he wrote.

Here, Swann said, only the first two factors are at issue.

In the case of the death certificate, Swann said state law permits disclosure only to those who have a "legal or vital interest,'' listing seven specific categories of who fits within that definition, "none of which include the general public.''

Less clear, Swann said, are privacy claims.

On one hand, the judge said, those are of minimal interest when the records involve the activities of a public official are concerned.

"But when records of government action are merely incidental to an otherwise private matter, including the death of an individual, privacy interests weigh more heavily,'' Swann continued.

In ordering the records at issue to be examined by the probate judge, Swann said he believes that much of what is in the files will be determined to be outside the scope of what is public.

"For example, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances that would justify the public disclosure of autopsy photographs here,'' he wrote. "Other privacy concerns, including the ongoing privacy interests of living crime victims, must be weighed against the need for public awareness of the government's performance of its law enforcement functions.''