Brian Nichols wants to conceal from public view one of the most crucial steps in his trial because he contends it is prejudicing potential jurors against him.

In court papers filed Wednesday, Nichols and his lawyers asked Superior Court Judge James Bodiford to bar reporters from the courtroom until a jury is selected for the death-penalty trial.

John Spink/AJC (ENLARGE)

Brian Nichols has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, saying delusion overwhelmed his ability to keep from killing.

• Trial photos: Penalty phase | Verdict Week 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 • Opening arguments • Interactive graphic: Timeline of shootings • BLOG: Discuss the verdict RECENT STORIES Nichols' daughter only met dad after killings  Witness says Nichols was model employee at H-P  Nichols defense team gets an earful from judge  Nichols trial penalty phase to stretch on  Spare Nichols because of his awful childhood, witnesses say  Nichols saw brownies as part of conspiracy, psychiatrist says  Hired defense psychologist caught off guard Nichols' mother calls him easygoing, 'a gentleman' Nichols says he was at war with U.S. government in taped confession Ashley Robinson says Nichols tried to recruit her AJC's full trial coverage RELATED LINKS Atlanta news Georgia and metro news

The request troubled some experts because, in effect, it meant a shroud of secrecy would cover the process of deciding who would be an acceptable juror — the process that often decides the fate of a case.

"I hope there is not a serious chance that the judge would grant that request," said Ron Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia law school. "It would feed suspicion about what is happening behind closed doors."

Bodiford plans a hearing Thursday on whether to ban the press as well as on the defense lawyers' demand that he slow down jury selection because the schedule is too arduous. The lawyers say they are "physically and mentally exhausted" from the 10-hour-a-day, six-day-a-week schedule the judge has set.

Stephen Bright, who defends death-penalty cases across the South, said the defense has a legitimate argument, though it is a difficult one to make since the law favors open proceedings.

Bright, who is the director for the Southern Center for Human Rights, said he once persuaded a Mississippi judge to block the media from covering jury selection in a highly publicized case in the 1980s.

"It is one of the few cases where the judge barred the press," he said. "Nothing compares to Nichols ... but frankly, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that the request would be granted."

The Nichols case has been the center of controversy since last year, when the previous judge delayed the case because the state had refused to pay the defense lawyers or reimburse their expenses after their tab passed $1.2 million. Bodiford has said that the media coverage is necessary to restore public confidence in the case.

But Nichols' legal team contends that the concern for public confidence is now outweighing Nichols right to a fair trial, though almost all of the 100-plus potential jurors questioned so far were familiar with the case.

The defendant made national headlines in March 2005 when, authorities say, he overpowered a Fulton County sheriff's deputy at the courthouse, took her gun and killed the judge who was presiding over his rape case and the court reporter. He then shot and killed another deputy who pursued him when he escaped and killed an off-duty federal agent in a robbery later that day, they say.

Nichols has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, saying delusion overwhelmed his ability to keep from killing.

His defense team, which cited the past court controversies as damaging to their client, contends the media are "saturating the jury pool with prejudicial and inflammatory reporting" through quoting the statements of potential jurors.

While the filing Wednesday didn't cite examples of inflammatory reporting, stories have quoted potential jurors suggesting Nichols be tortured, spoken of the repetitive and time-consuming questioning by lawyers, and reported the defense request that TV cameras not show Nichols during a hearing because he thought his beard might make him look too sinister.

The defense, led by Henderson Hill, a renowned death-penalty litigator from Charlotte, also contended the judge has jeopardized justice by acquiescing to broadcast video needs.

The lawyers cited Bodiford's doing a brief recap from the bench of the jury-selection proceedings as a "courtesy" for newscasts because he has banned filming potential jurors.

The lawyers noted that Bodiford did reject the "bizarre and inappropriate" request from one news representative that he stage a conversation with the lawyers so that the weekend newscasts could have footage.

As for the request to slow down jury selection, Bodiford created an aggressive schedule to speed up the oft-delayed process. Attorneys for both sides had projected it would take until mid September, but Bodiford is on target to finish it by mid-August.

Hill has said the schedule has left the lawyers exhausted because they still have to work several hours a night after court and in court papers voice concern that a fair trial is being compromised to placate public discontent about the funding and the slowness the case was taking to get to trial.

The court filings — in which there have been a multitude in recent weeks — are part of the groundwork attorneys are laying to assist their client's appeal if he his convicted. Nichols' lawyers made it clear that Wednesday's request would be the subject of appeals if not granted.

"It seems odd to spend even small amounts of time putting on a show out of 'courtesy' to accommodate the media's desire for broadcast footage," the lawyers wrote. "Any willingness — real or perceived — by this court to stage proceedings in this capital case for the sole purpose of generating footage for the broadcast media, provides support for the claim that public pressure is indeed influencing the conduct of this trial."