The state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Lizzi Marriott’s sexual history should remain sealed. However, the court did not address the broader question of whether the state’s long-standing rape shield protections apply in every appeal.
That has local and national advocates already thinking about the next step. They’re now asking whether this is the opportune time to seek statutory changes aimed at strengthening New Hampshire’s rape shield law and its victim bill of rights.
“This is a huge relief for the Marriott family, but in terms of what this means for victims and the statutes, we still don’t know,” said Amanda Grady Sexton, public policy director for the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. “We’re grateful that they changed course, but there are still a number of unanswered questions about where they stand moving forward.”
The Supreme Court ordered in June that Marriott’s records be unsealed in response to an appeal filed by her convicted murder, Seth Mazzaglia. The court’s decision on Thursday reverses that controversial ruling, saying “the records sealed by the trial court shall remain sealed and that the parties’ unredacted appellate briefs and appendices shall remain confidential.”
Mazzaglia was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 2014 for strangling and murdering Marriott, a 19-year-old University of New Hampshire student. Mazzaglia has since questioned whether a Strafford County Superior Court judge erred in ruling twice that Marriott’s prior sexual history was inadmissible at trial under the state’s rape shield protections.
Rape shield laws exist in every state and limit or prohibit a defendant’s ability to introduce evidence about a victim’s sexual history to undermine his or her credibility. The law has historically covered all courts until the final disposition of a case. Victims advocates nationwide expressed shock at the Supreme Court’s summer order, which they called a dismantling of New Hampshire’s rape shield law. They said on Thursday they’re thrilled to see the court reverse its prior ruling.
That decision came just eight days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.
Claudia Bayliff, an attorney, said the Supreme Court reached the right decision. Although, she said, she had hoped the court would have specifically addressed the broader application of the rape shield law on appeal. She said the justices erred in not doing so. The coalition filed a brief in August that opposed the court’s unsealing of the records, and 12 other organizations also signed on, including the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the New Hampshire County Attorneys Association, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the Victim Rights Law Center.
During oral arguments last week, Mazzaglia’s attorney, Christopher Johnson, argued that the rape shield law does not apply at the appellate level. He also maintained that all appellate proceedings should take place in open court. Prior to Thursday’s ruling, the state Attorney General’s Office had called for a closed-court process with redacted transcripts to be released at a later date. The court, though, has never prohibited the public from attending oral arguments, two justices noted last week.
The Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of transparency. Oral arguments on Mazzaglia’s direct appeal will be open to the public. A date for that hearing has not yet been set.