photo by: Chris Conde/Journal-World

Attorney Michael Clarke appears at a hearing on Dec. 16, 2024, in Douglas County District Court.

The state and defense are at odds regarding whether an arrest affidavit of a man accused of molesting a child should be kept from the public — a disagreement that should soon be resolved by a court order.

The case involves 75-year-old defendant Steven Braswell, who was arrested last month and charged with one count of aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a boy under the age of 14 — crimes that allegedly occurred in 2016 and that are punishable by life in prison.

The state filed its response to a disclosure request by the Journal-World under seal, meaning it’s not publicly viewable, but the state apparently argued that certain redactions, rather than a court seal, were sufficient to protect sensitive information in the affidavit. This is according to the defense response by attorney Michael Clarke, which was not filed under seal and which summarized the state’s position.

Clarke, opposing the state, argued that no part of the affidavit should be seen by the public. A total seal is “the only adequate measure,” he wrote.

Allegations in an arrest affidavit have not been proved in court. An affidavit is a sworn document prepared by police outlining why they believe they had probable cause to deprive a person of his liberty and to take him into custody to face charges.

Clarke argues that if the public were to see the allegations in the affidavit, a future jury would be unduly prejudiced against his client, preventing him from getting a fair trial. He also argues that the minor whom Braswell is accused of molesting would be harmed even if his name and identifying information were entirely redacted.

“The Affidavit is short and its factual content is interwoven such that meaningful redaction cannot be achieved without rendering the document incoherent,” Clarke wrote in his motion.

Clarke also argued that continuing news coverage of his client’s case is likely to prejudice potential jurors against Braswell, particularly reporting about the prosecutor’s statement, made in open court at a bond hearing, that Braswell had confessed to the child’s parent and to police.

At the bond hearing, Clarke had put Braswell on the stand to question him about his inability to come up with the bond money — $50,000 cash or surety — to get out of jail pending resolution of his case. Prosecutor Megan Ahsens, taking advantage of her right to then cross-examine, asked Braswell, who had said he had no prior crimes besides a long-ago DUI, if it wasn’t true that he had admitted committing the 2016 offenses.

“But you confessed to this crime, correct?” she asked.

Despite being put on the stand to testify that he couldn’t afford the bond, Braswell, who the state said owned three homes and three vehicles, posted bond the next day.

The affidavit was requested on May 20. Under state law, judges have 10 business days to respond to the request. They have the option of sealing an arrest affidavit entirely or simply redacting sensitive parts of the document.