NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A Tennessee judge is deliberating on whether the writings of a school shooter at the Covenant School should be released as public record once the investigation is officially closed, a case made more complex by the parents of children asserting legal ownership and copyright.
During a two-day hearing in Davidson County Chancery Court, eight attorneys debated the interplay of federal copyright protections and the Tennessee Public Records Act with Judge I’Ashea Myles. Myles announced plans to draft specific questions before ruling on when, if ever, the writings could be made public.
The police view the collected writings as public records obtained during the investigation into the tragic shooting on March 27, 2023, in which three 9-year-old children and three adult staff members lost their lives. However, the release of the writings is pending the conclusion of the investigation.
Various entities, including news outlets, a Tennessee state senator, a gun-rights group, and a law enforcement nonprofit, are requesting immediate release, arguing that the open investigation is merely a formality as the shooter is deceased and no other suspects have been identified.
On the other hand, three different groups intervening in the case suggested that none of the writings should ever be made public. Attorneys representing the Covenant parents, school, and church claimed that the writings are protected by a Tennessee law safeguarding school security information.
Attorney Eric Osborne argued that releasing the writings could potentially harm the children, who are considered victims under the Tennessee Constitution. The debate over privacy, copyright, and victims’ rights intensified during the proceedings, leading Myles to contemplate the broader implications of the law.
While acknowledging the emotional weight of the case, Myles reiterated the importance of interpreting the law objectively, setting aside personal feelings. The decision on whether to release the writings remains pending, with Myles navigating the delicate balance between legal interpretation and empathy.