FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — December 14, 2025

Records Show Los Angeles Superior Court Held a Closed, Unannounced Hearing in People v. Smiel; Public, Press, and ADA Support Were Shut Out

Los Angeles, CA — Newly released courtroom attendance logs and internal records indicate that the Los Angeles Superior Court held a key criminal hearing in People v. Giselle Farias Smiel on October 6, 2025, without admitting any members of the public, the press, or the defendant’s ADA communication support. The court also appears to have moved the hearing from its publicly noticed courtroom to a different department without notifying observers, raising alarms about an effectively “secret” criminal hearing in a high-stakes case.

Supporters who appeared both in person and remotely for the publicly scheduled hearing in Department 34 were left waiting for hours, never admitted and never informed that the hearing had been moved.

Public Access Logs: Observers Checked In — But No One Was Ever Let In

According to the official remote-attendance report for Department 34, where the hearing was publicly calendared for 8:30 a.m., multiple observers—including advocates, researchers, and supporters—checked in via the court’s virtual platform at or near the hearing time.

Yet the platform was never opened to the public. No remote attendee was admitted at any point in the morning session, and observers remained in the virtual “lobby” for hours without access.

Those shut out included:

• Independent journalist Michael Phillips
• ADA communication-support provider Renata “Ren” DeMello (not an attorney)
• Multiple court watchers and legal-aid advocates

All attempted to attend using the official remote-access link supplied by the court.

Court Quietly Shifted the Hearing to a Different Department Without Public Notice

In a December 3, 2025, letter, Court Counsel David Lee confirmed that although the October 6 hearing was calendared in Department 34, it was actually conducted in Department 127 that same morning.

However, the remote-attendance log for Department 127 shows:

• Zero remote attendees checked in
• No public access
• No ADA support personnel admitted

This was not merely a change in courtroom number.
The proceeding was conducted by a different judge, Judge Edwards, rather than the previously assigned Judge DeWitt.

To date, the court has produced no record of any public notice, announcement, or advisory telling observers, the press, or the defendant’s disability-related support person that the hearing had been moved from Department 34 to Department 127.

Advocates Call It a “Constructive Closure” of the Courtroom

Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution require that criminal proceedings be open to the public, with only narrow and carefully justified exceptions. Any closure—partial or complete—must be supported by specific findings on the record, notice to the public, and the least restrictive means of protecting any countervailing interest.

According to the produced records, none of those safeguards were followed.

“The Superior Court effectively conducted a closed-door hearing in a criminal case,” said independent journalist and ADA advocate Michael Phillips, who attempted to attend and later obtained the attendance logs. “Observers checked in. ADA support checked in. Court watchers checked in. The public link was never opened, and no one was told that the courtroom had been moved. That undercuts the public-trial right and the defendant’s right to accessible, disability-related support.”

ADA Title II Failures: Disability Support Was Locked Out Too

Defendant Giselle Farias Smiel has requested disability-related communication support in her criminal case. Her ADA communication-support provider, Renata DeMello, checked in for the October 6 hearing and was never admitted. The court has not provided any explanation or record showing that:

• Her ADA role was honored in the new department
• Equivalent access was arranged when the hearing was moved
• Required notice was given when logistics changed

Under ADA Title II (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) and California Rule of Court 1.100, courts must:

• Ensure effective communication with disabled litigants and participants
• Coordinate ADA accommodations through a designated process
• Refrain from unilaterally downgrading, restricting, or revoking previously granted accommodations without proper findings and alternative measures

Moving a hearing to another department, failing to open any public access, and leaving the ADA communication-support provider locked out is, advocates argue, more than a scheduling error—it may amount to a denial of access under federal law.

“When the only person designated to bridge communication is left outside the virtual door, the court isn’t just inconveniencing a supporter,” said DeMello. “It is cutting off the defendant’s ADA lifeline in a criminal case where liberty is at stake.”

A Pattern of Access Concerns

Attendance records from later dates tell a different story. For the October 20 and November 19, 2025 hearings, remote attendees—including press, captioning services, and court watchers—were successfully admitted when the case proceeded in Department 127 under ordinary conditions.

The only hearing where remote participants were completely shut out was October 6—the same hearing that was silently moved from its publicly noticed courtroom.

Advocates note that, even at later hearings, ADA issues persisted. In one instance, the court provided only a one-way real-time text stream rather than interactive remote access, limiting the ability of disability support to intervene or flag concerns in real time. These choices, they argue, reflect a deeper misunderstanding of what “effective communication” requires in criminal proceedings.

Transparency, Due Process, and Disability Rights at Stake

Public access to criminal proceedings is a cornerstone of constitutional due process and democratic oversight. When a hearing is quietly moved off its public calendar, the remote link is never opened, and no member of the press, public, or ADA support is allowed in, the proceeding stops being meaningfully “public.”

Under NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, California courts cannot close—or effectively close—courtroom proceedings without public notice, an opportunity for the press and public to be heard, and specific findings that any restriction is narrowly tailored to protect an overriding interest. None of those safeguards were followed here: there was no closure motion on the docket, no advance announcement that access would be restricted, and no on-the-record findings explaining why the October 6 hearing proceeded with zero public or press access.

Taken together, these facts raise serious concerns about violations of:

• The First Amendment public-access right
• The Sixth Amendment right to a public criminal proceeding
• ADA Title II and its implementing regulations on effective communication
• California Constitution Article I protections for open courts and public proceedings

The October 6 hearing did not just undercut open-court principles; it also cut off the defendant’s access to disability-related communication support. By silently relocating the hearing and leaving Ms. Smiel’s ADA communication-support person locked out of the virtual courtroom, the Court undermined the effective-communication requirements of ADA Title II and California Rule of Court 1.100 in a case where liberty is at stake.

“These records show more than a clerical mix-up,” Phillips said. “They show a criminal hearing held without public oversight, without meaningful ADA access, and without the basic transparency the law requires.”

About the Case

People v. Giselle Farias Smiel, Case No. 25CJCF03564, is pending in the Criminal Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case has drawn growing scrutiny from legal observers, disability-rights advocates, and court-watch groups over alleged procedural irregularities, access barriers, and the handling of protective orders, discovery, bail, and ADA accommodations.

For media inquiries or further documentation (including attendance logs and correspondence referenced above), please contact:

Media / ADA Contact:
Renata “Ren” DeMello
ADA Communication-Support Advocate (not an attorney)
Email: RenCMDM@proton.me

Contact:

Michael Phillips
Investigative Journalist

The Thunder Report / Father & Co. / Bay News Media

Email: mike@thunderrpeort.org

Phone: 240.428.0202 (Signal)