IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) I.D. Nos. 2010002207 (Sharp)
) 2010023976 (Stalczynski)
NOAH SHARP, )
ANNIKA STALCZYNSKI, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
1. Noah Sharp (“Sharp”) and Annika Stalczynski (“Stalczynski”) are
charged with Murder First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the
Commission of a Felony, and Conspiracy First Degree in the death of Madison
Sparrow, alleged to have occurred on or about October 2, 2020. The cases are
severed for trial, with Sharp’s trial to begin in June 2022 and Stalczynski’s scheduled
for the following October.
2. The Court has been informed that Isabel Hughes (“Hughes”), a reporter
for the News Journal newspaper has requested to view and copy certain documents
in the above cases. Specifically, with respect to Stalczynski, she seeks to inspect
and copy Stalczynski’s Motion for Reverse Amenability 1 and all Superior Court
search warrants related to the case that were unsealed pursuant to the State’s
1
D.I. 6.
application on January 20, 2022.2 In Sharp’s case, she seeks a Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel filed by Sharp’s former attorney,3 an email to the Court from one of
Sharp’s current attorneys,4 the State’s Response to Sharp’s Motion to Compel,5 and
all Superior Court search warrants related to Sharp’s case unsealed at the State’s
request.6
3. The Court solicited the positions of all counsel. The State opposes
release out of concern that the jury pools for both defendants could be adversely
affected. Sharp opposes for the same reason as well as a concern that the Motion
to Withdraw and the email from current counsel relate to his relationship with
counsel. Stalczynski also opposes for the same reasons as the State. Hughes has
written to the Court expressing her belief that it is important for the public, through
the News Journal, to have access to the requested documents and that the State has
not made a compelling argument why both the public’s right to know and the
Defendants’ rights to fair trials cannot be accommodated simultaneously.
4. Turning first to the docketed items in the Court’s files not under seal.
These items are not confidential and are in the public domain. Just as any item not
under seal, these items are available for inspection and copying by the public and
2
D.I. 25.
3
D.I. 11.
4
D.I. 36.
5
D.I. 37.
6
D.I. 29.
media.
5. The search warrants present a different situation. The practice in the
Superior Court is to seal search warrants and supporting documents at the request of
the State when such a request is made.7 Investigatory search warrants are not kept
in case files. In fact, most often, there are no case files because the warrants are
requested prior to any arrest. Also, investigatory search warrants are frequently
directed to third parties, such as records custodians, and may not be readily
associated with a particular defendant’s case, especially if that defendant had not
been identified when the warrant was issued. In that circumstance it may be
difficult for the Court to associate a particular search warrant with a criminal case
when the case is opened later. Superior Court Administrative Directive No. 2000-
5 provides in Section I that generally all case records and information are open to
the public except:
E. Unexecuted or unreturned warrants. Unreturned
search warrants, arrest warrants or summonses in a
criminal case and affidavits or sworn testimony and
records of proceedings in support of the issuance of search
or arrest warrants, except related to grand jury
indictments, shall not be disclosed until such time as the
warrants are returned.
7
The Court is hard-pressed to recall an investigatory search warrant that the State
did not request to be sealed.
3
5. Relatedly, this Court has addressed the question of the public’s right of
access to sealed search warrants. In In the Matter of 2 Sealed Search Warrants,8
the News Journal sought the unsealing of two search warrants in connection with an
arson investigation where the search warrants had been returned and sealed, but no
arrest had been made. The Superior Court held: (1) the First Amendment qualified
right of access did not extend to preindictment search warrants and their supporting
documentation; (2) the common law presumption of openness of judicial documents
was outweighed by the State’s interest in protecting the integrity of the investigation
and the potential harm to individuals involved; (3) redaction was not a viable
alternative to full disclosure; and (4) closure hearings were not required before
sealing preindictment search warrants and their supporting documentation.9
6. In these cases, the State submitted the following form of Order which the
Court signed on January 20, 2022:
In consideration of the State’s representation that
numerous search warrants were placed under seal during
the investigative stages of the above-captioned matters,
and based on a request by the State to unseal these search
warrants so that they can be provided to defense counsel:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 20th day of
JANUARY 2022, that all previous orders sealing search
8
710 A.2d 201 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 12, 1997).
9
Id.
4
warrants are VACATED.10
7. The Court has examined the search warrants, search warrant
applications, and supporting affidavits. In total, the Court has identified 18 search
warrants issued by the Superior Court.11 Fourteen of them were directed to Apple,
Inc. for information related to iCloud accounts associated with each Defendant.
Four were directed to Instagram, LLC, a subsidiary of Facebook, LLC. One
Instagram search warrant sought information for an account associated with
Stalczynski, another associated with Sharp, and the other two for two accounts
associated with Madison Sparrow. The first five search warrants were issued on
November 10, 2020. The Defendants were indicted separately on November 16,
2020 and reindicted jointly on March 8, 2021. Sharp was arrested on October 5,
2020 and bound over for consideration by the grand jury after a preliminary hearing
in the Court of Common Pleas on October 12, 2020. Stalczynski was arrested on
November 16th after her indictment was returned. Subsequent to their indictments,
ten more search warrants were issued on December 9, 2020. The final three search
warrants were issued on February 22, 2021. These last three search warrants only
extended the authorized time frame for the searches to a date two weeks earlier than
10
D.I. 29 (Sharp); D.I. 25 (Stalczynski).
11
It appears at least one other search warrant was issued. See, Tr. Preliminary
Hearing (Oct. 12, 2020) at 19, D.I. 2 (Sharp).
5
previously authorized in three prior search warrants. Despite the requirement of 11
Del. C. § 2307(b) that search warrants be returned “forthwith” none of the 18 search
warrants has been returned.
8. The Court also has reviewed the transcript of Sharp’s preliminary
hearing 12 and Stalczynski’s reverse amenability hearing. 13 In both hearings the
State called as its lone witness Det. Mark Csap who also was the affiant on all of the
search warrant applications.
9. The Court finds the objections of the State, Sharp and Stalczynski to
Hughes’ request unpersuasive for a number of reasons. First, any objections to
Hughes inspecting and copying docketed items are without merit because those
items are in the public record and are accessible to the public and media. Second,
the State submitted, and the Court signed, a form of order unsealing the search
warrants on January 20, 2022.14 While the Order unsealing the search warrants
noted that the State requested they be unsealed so that they could be provided to
defense counsel, the Order vacated “all previous orders sealing search warrants”
without limitation.15 Moreover, none of the objections to Hughes’ request argued
12
D.I. 2 (Sharp).
13
D.I. 23 (Stalczynski).
14
D.I. 29 (Sharp).
15
Id.
6
that the Order should be interpreted to limit disclosure only to defense counsel.
Third, the transcripts of Sharp’s preliminary hearing and Stalczynski’s reverse
amenability hearing, which are in the Defendants’ files and accessible to the public
and media, provide far more details about the investigation than do the search
warrants. Thus, withholding the information contained in the search warrants and
the affidavits in support of them from the media would serve little purpose.
Fourth, the Court is aware of little, if any media attention to this case after the
Defendants’ indictments. Certainly, none has been called to its attention by the
parties. Even if, as anticipated, media attention refocuses on the case prior to
Sharp’s trial, the Court sees no reason why careful voir dire would be inadequate to
protect the parties’ rights to fair trials. Stalcynski’s argument that her right to a fair
trial would be impaired is especially unpersuasive. Her trial is not until October
and Sharp’s trial, with its attendant media coverage, will have occurred already.
Finally, the Court does not consider Administrative Directive No. 2000-5 or In the
Matter of 2 Sealed Search Warrants controlling under these facts. Although the
search warrants have not been returned, they should have been. Had they been
returned, the Directive arguably would not have prohibited disclosure of any
unsealed warrants. In any event, the protections the Directive and In the Matter of
2 Sealed Search Warrants were intended to afford - keeping ongoing investigations
7
confidential and respecting the privacy rights of innocent third parties - are absent
here.16 To the extent the confidentiality of the investigation once was a concern,
that concern has been diminished substantially, if not eliminated, by documents
already in the public record. Further, the targets of the search warrants are public
corporations which merely are custodians of certain records. They are at no risk of
having the reputations unfairly tarnished by disclosure of the search warrants and
their supporting affidavits.
10. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the
documents Hughes seeks to inspect and copy, identified above, are in the public
domain and are subject to inspection and copying. Further, the parties’ rights to fair
trials will not be impaired by her inspection and copying of the documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the request of Isabel Hughes
to inspect and copy the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Sharp’s former
counsel,17 an email to the Court from one of Sharp’s current attorneys, 18 and the
16
Despite the Court ordering disclosure of preindictment search warrants under the
particular facts presented here, it is apparent that these protections frequently are of
greater concern preindictment. Under the proper circumstances, preindictment
search warrants may remain sealed after indictment even in the face of requests from
the media to unseal them.
17
D.I. 11.
18
D.I. 36.
8
State’s Response to Sharp’s Motion to Compel19 in State v. Noah Sharp, ID No.
2010002207 and the Motion for Reverse Amenability 20 in State v. Annika
Stalczynski, I.D. No. 2010023976, together with all Superior Court search warrants
and supporting applications and affidavits in both cases is GRANTED.
Dated: May 10, 2022
/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.
oc: Prothonotary
cc: John W. Downs, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General (via email)
Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General (via email)
Monika Germono, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender (via email)
Alanna Farber, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender (via email)
Brian J. Chapman, Esquire (via email)
Isabel Hughes (via email)
19
D.I. 37.
20
D.I. 16.
9
State v. Stalczynski
Combined Opinion