Case Title: Ex Parte Consolidated Pub. Co., Inc.

Citation: 601 So. 2d 423

Docket Number: 1901184

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1992-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
601 So. 2d 423 (1992)
Ex parte CONSOLIDATED PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Publisher of the Daily Home and of the Anniston Star, et al.
(Re STATE of Alabama
v.
Shep WILSON, Jr.).
1901184.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 24, 1992.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1992.
*424 O. Stanley Thornton of Wooten, Thornton, Carpenter, O'Brien & Lazenby, Talladega, and James C. Barton, Gilbert E. Johnston, Jr. and Hollinger F. Barnard of Johnston, Barton, Proctor, Swedlaw & Naff, Birmingham, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Dennis R. Bailey of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Press Association.
PER CURIAM.
Consolidated Publishing Company, Inc. ("Consolidated"), publisher of the Talladega Daily Home and the Anniston Star; Bill Keller, individually, and as editor-publisher of the Daily Home; and Michael Anderson, a reporter for the Daily Home (all hereintogether referred to as "Consolidated") petition this Court for a writ of mandamus to Judge Jerry Fielding of the Circuit Court of Talladega County.
In November 1986, Shep Wilson, Jr., was convicted in the Talladega County Circuit Court of kidnapping, rape, and murder, and *425 was sentenced to death. This Court reversed that conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial, because the prosecutor, in his closing arguments to the jury, had made "a direct comment on [Wilson's] failure to testify," Ex parte Wilson, 571 So. 2d 1251, 1265 (Ala.1990). The case is now awaiting retrial in the Talladega County Circuit Court.
On February 14, 1991, Wilson filed a "Motion to Seal File and for Closure of All Proceedings Prior to Jury Sequestration." Employees of the Daily Home were served with a copy of the closure motion, and Consolidated's lawyers attended the hearing on that motion.
At the hearing on the closure motion, Wilson offered in support of his motion a catalog of Daily Home articles; the testimony of Charles Osborne, the Daily Home's circulation manager; and the testimony of Janice Keith, the Daily Home's news editor. The trial court orally granted the motion at the end of the hearing.
Consolidated moved to vacate the trial court's order, and after argument on Consolidated's motion to vacate, the trial court entered a written order, which stated in pertinent part:
Consolidated petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to vacate its order, contending that the trial court's order violates the public's and the press's right of access to criminal proceedings, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy. For this Court to issue such a writ, there must be (1) a clear legal right of the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the Court. Ex parte Adams, 514 So. 2d 845 (Ala.1987). Accordingly, the burden of proof in regard to this mandamus petition is on Consolidated; however, as our discussion of United States Supreme Court cases will show, the burden is upon Wilson to justify the closure he seeks, provided that the right of access Consolidated claims attaches in this case.
In a variety of factual contexts, the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the press's and the public's access to criminal proceedings. The most recent decision of that Court on the issue of the press's and the public's right of access, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986), which we refer to as Press-Enterprise II, is directly on point in this case, is comprehensible without explanation of other cases, and provides a specific method for analyzing the dispositive issues now before us; accordingly, we do not provide a detailed historical analysis of the progression of the cases involving the public's and the press's access to criminal proceedings. Instead, we generally refer the bench and bar to these cases to illustrate the development of the law in this area. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984) ("Press-Enterprise I") (First Amendment right of access to juror voir dire); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982) (closure and right of access to criminal trials); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555,100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980) (closure and right of access to criminal trials); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S. Ct. 2898, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1979) (closure and right of access to a suppression hearing); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978) (common law right to copy and inspect public records and documents, including judicial records and documents).
Wilson argues, however, that Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976)and not Press-Enterprise IIprovides the standards for analyzing this case. In Nebraska Press Association, the trial court, before the defendant's trial for a murder that had attracted massive publicity, entered an order restraining the media from publishing confessions or admissions made by the defendant to law enforcement officers or to any third person. 427 U.S.  at 544-45, 96 S. Ct.  at 2795-96. Nebraska Press Association thus addressed an issue of prior restrainti.e., a restriction on the media from publishing information in its possession. Id. at 563-70, 96 S. Ct.  at 2804-08. The present case, however, addresses a restriction of access. Cf. Nebraska Press Association with Press-Enterprise II, Press-Enterprise I, Globe Newspaper Co., and Richmond Newspapers. See also, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 478 Pa. 484, 387 A.2d 425, 432-434 (1978) (analyzing the differences between prior restraint cases and right of access cases). Accordingly, we reject Wilson's contention that Nebraska Press Association, instead of Press-Enterprise II, provides the standards by which to analyze this case.
In Press-Enterprise II, the United States Supreme Court wrote:
478 U.S.  at 3-10, 106 S. Ct.  at 2737-41. (Emphasis added.)
Given the foregoing, we must first determine whether the First Amendment right of public access that Press-Enterprise II describes attaches in this case. Id. at 9, 106 S. Ct.  at 2740. To make that determination, we must make a twofold determination of whether the place and process have historically been open to the *429 press and the general public and whether public access plays a (particularly) significant positive role in the functioning of the process in question. Id. at 8, 106 S. Ct.  at 2740.
These determinations are complicated in this case considerably by the trial court's blanket closure of all "pretrial hearings" until the jury is selected. At oral argument, the parties stated that the closure of "pretrial hearings" primarily affected suppression hearings, but the order encompasses all "pretrial hearings." (We do not read the order as closure of juror voir dire, in derogation of Press-Enterprise I.) Also, the trial court sealed the court file until the jury was selected, so we must address not only the closure of the "pretrial hearings" but also the closure of the court file.
We first address whether pretrial hearings have been conducted in a place and are a process that have historically been open to the press and the general public, mindful that "the First Amendment question cannot be resolved solely on the label we give the event, trial or otherwise." Press-Enterprise II, at 7, 106 S. Ct.  at 2740. In State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provided the public and press a "protectible constitutional interest in access to all pretrial proceedings in the prosecution of a criminal case," 93 N.J. at 48, 51-57, 459 A.2d  at 645, 647-50. (Emphasis added.) In arriving at that conclusion, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that "the near uniform practice in the federal and state court systems has been to conduct pretrial criminal proceedings in open court," 93 N.J. at 55, 459 A.2d  at 649, and that court provided perhaps the most impressive and comprehensive citation of authority for that proposition yet assembled.[2]
Not all pretrial hearings have a historical counterpart. As to those pretrial hearings that have no historical counterpart, courts, in addressing the issue of access, have focused on the importance of the hearings to the case, in an analysis similar to the *430 Press-Enterprise II standard of whether public access plays a (particularly) significant positive role in the functioning of the process. For example, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Kammeyer, 341 N.W.2d 550 (Minn.1983), the Minnesota Supreme Court, in holding that under the First Amendment "the public does have a right of access to [all] pretrial proceedings in criminal cases," 341 N.W.2d  at 556, stated:
Id. at 555. For further discussion of this point see Iowa Freedom of Information Council v. Wifvat, 328 N.W.2d 920 (Iowa 1983), and Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 574, 281 S.E.2d 915, 922 (1981).
That there is little English common law history for many present pretrial hearings and that much of the history concerning pretrial hearings is relatively recent are explained by Chief Justice Burger in Gannett:
443 U.S.  at 395-96, 99 S. Ct.  at 2913 (Burger, C.J., concurring).
Much has been written on the issue of the positive role that public access plays in the actual functioning of pretrial hearings, and to aid us in our analysis, we consider the writings of other courts.
To begin, other courts have noted that publicity concerning pretrial proceedings differs in some respects from publicity concerning the actual trial. For example, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., the Supreme Court of Minnesota wrote:
341 N.W.2d  at 556.
On the same subject, in Ashland Publishing Co. v. Asbury, 612 S.W.2d 749 (Ky. App.1980), the court wrote:
612 S.W.2d  at 752.
Although both those courts acknowledged that pretrial publicity has a far greater potential for prejudicing a defendant's fair trial rights than does publicity at trial, both nevertheless held that a right of access to the pretrial hearing existed. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., at 556; Ashland Publishing Co., at 752.
The Supreme Court of Hawaii in Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 580 P.2d 49 (1978), a case involving the *431 closure of a preliminary hearing, provided an excellent discussion of the value of open proceedings:
59 Haw. at 229-230, 580 P.2d  at 54-55.
Directly on point in our discussion, the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Williams wrote:
93 N.J. at 53-55, 459 A.2d  at 648-49.
For further discussion, see Richmond Newspapers, Inc., and Arkansas Television Co. v. Tedder, 281 Ark. 152, 662 S.W.2d 174 (1983).
Furthermore, as the court in Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Legett, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 423 N.Y.S.2d 630, 636, 399 N.E.2d 518, 523 (1979), points out, a large portion of the prosecution of most criminal cases is done in pretrial proceedings; if the public and the press were excluded from such proceedingsor have no right of access to themthen it is possible that a large portion of the work of criminal courts would be "behind closed doors."
We note that other courts have resolved the issues concerning the public's and the press's right of access in the following ways. Some courts have held that without regard to any state constitutional provision the First Amendment carries a right of access. Arkansas Television Co. (holding that the First Amendment provides a right of access to "pretrial proceedings"); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (holding that the First Amendment provides the public a "right of access to pretrial proceedings in criminal cases"); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that the First Amendment provides a right of access to suppression hearings, at least). Some courts have held that the First Amendment, as well as their own state constitutions, provided a right of access. Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Lewis, 685 P.2d 515 (Utah 1984) (First Amendment provides right of access "to preliminary hearings in criminal cases"); State v. Williams (holding that First Amendment provides a right *433 of access to "all pretrial proceedings"); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. (holding that First Amendment provides right of access to suppression hearings). Finally, some courts have held that a right of access exists under their state constitutions. Iowa Freedom of Information Council; Ashland Publishing Co.; Great Falls Tribune v. District Court, 186 Mont. 433, 608 P.2d 116 (1980). For further discussion, see United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550 (3d Cir.1982); United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.App.1981). Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982).
Considering our discussion, we hold that the qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings described in Press-Enterprise II applies to pretrial hearings. Press-Enterprise II; State v. Williams; Arkansas Television Co.; Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.[3]
As to the court file, the analysis is much simpler. First, the United States Supreme Court in Nixon v. Warner Communications, supra, as much as said that judicial records and documents have historically been open to the press and public:
435 U.S.  at 597-99, 98 S. Ct.  at 1311-13. The same considerations as to the positive role in the functioning of the process that we discussed earlier apply as to the court file. We conclude, therefore, that the qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applies to the court file. Press-Enterprise II; State v. Williams; Arkansas Television Co.; Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
Because the qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to the pretrial hearings and the court file, they cannot be closed unless the court makes specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and the closure order is narrowly tailored to serve those interests. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S.  at 13-14, 106 S. Ct.  at 2742-43. Wilson asserts that his fair trial rights will be violated unless the order stands. To prevail, Wilson must present evidence that will support specific findings that there is a substantial probability that his right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect his fair trial rights. Press-Enterprise II, at 14, 106 S. Ct.  at 2743; Press-Enterprise I; Richmond Newspapers.
First, Wilson, who is a member of a racial minority, presented evidence consisting of editorial cartoons and comments *434 from the Daily Home. In substance, this evidence indicates a negative stance toward minority groups, convicted criminals, and persons whose viewpoint some might label as "liberal."
Second, Wilson presented evidence of Daily Home articles specifically concerning him and the crime of which he is accused. These articles consisted of reports of the murder investigation, reports of his arrest and indictment; detailed coverage of his trial, conviction, and sentencing; coverage of post trial motions; and an article on this Court's reversal of that conviction. In addition, Wilson produced an editorial cartoon from the Daily Home that depicted him as a "recipient of revolving door justice," and with a caption indicating that he had been sentenced to 15 years for rape in 1981, that he had been released in 1984, and that he had been convicted in 1986 for rape, sexual abuse, and capital murder.
Finally, at his hearing on the closure motion, Wilson produced evidence that the Daily Home had identified both his attorneys and himself by name and race, the identification by race serving no apparent race-neutral motive. Counsel for Wilson argued in the closure hearing that this case is racially sensitive.
The news editor for the Daily Home testified, with regard to information disclosed at pretrial hearings, that "[i]f it's available and we can use it, then we do."
We reiterate that the questions before us are whether, consistent with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, there is a substantial probability that Wilson's right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by publicity that the closure would prevent and whether reasonable alternatives to the closure can adequately protect his fair-trial rights.
Thus, the issue to be resolved relates to the sufficiency of the evidence of publicity produced by Wilson in support of a very broad closure order. The content of the publicity is a factor in our determination.[4]
The generalized editorial comments do not specifically indicate that it was substantially probable that Wilson's fair trial rights would be prejudiced, nor does the evidence relating to publicity about Wilson show that it is "substantially probable" that his right to a fair trial would be prejudiced in such a way as to require this closure order.
Based on the evidence, we conclude that the closure order in question is not "narrowly tailored" to protect Wilson's fair-trial interest. Although the trial court made the order subject to continuing review, the order closed all pretrial hearings and the court file. Neither the evidence presented by Wilson nor the trial court's findings indicate that such a broad order was required to protect Wilson's fair-trial interest. The order cannot be sustained under Press-Enterprise I or Press-Enterprise II.
Based on the foregoing, the petition for the writ of mandamus is due to be granted.
WRIT GRANTED.
MADDOX,[*] SHORES, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., dissents.
[1]  Later in the opinion, the United States Supreme Court stated this standard as whether public access "plays a particularly significant role in the actual functioning of the process." 478 U.S.  at 11, 106 S. Ct.  at 2742. (Emphasis added.)
[2]  In footnote 5 at 93 N.J. at 55, 459 A.2d  at 649-50, the Williams court wrote the following to support the proposition that "the near uniform practice in the federal and state court systems has been to conduct pretrial criminal proceedings in open court":

"Jurisdictions have expressed their practices in several fashions, including statute, e.g., Ark.Stat.Ann. § 22-109 (Repl.1962); Cal. Penal Code § 868 (West 1982); Ga.Code Ann. § 2-111 (1977); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-1.1-2-1 (West 1977); Mich.Stat.Ann. § 27 A. 1420 [M.C.L.A. § 600.1420] (Callaghan 1980); Nev. Rev.Stat. § 171.204 (1979); N.Y.Jud.Law § 4 (McKinney 1983); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 757.14 (West 1981); court rule, e.g., R. 1:2-1 (N.J.): Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(f) (suppression hearings); and decisional law construing constitutional or statutory provisions, e.g., Sacramento Bee v. United States District Court, 656 F.2d 477 (9 Cir.1981), cert. den., 456 U.S. 983, 102 S.Ct., 2257, 72 L. Ed. 2d 861 (1982); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9 Cir.1982); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557, 490 P.2d 563 (Ariz.1971); Shiras v. Britt, 267 Ark. 97, 589 S.W.2d 18 (Ark.1980); Star Journal Pub. Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 591 P.2d 1028 (Colo.1978); State v. Burak, 37 Conn.Sup. 627 431 A.2d 1246 (Conn.Sup. 1981); United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.App.1981); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Lewis, 383 So. 2d 236 (Fla.App.1980); R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 292 S.E.2d 815 (Ga.1982); Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Hawaii 224, 580 P.2d 49 (Hawaii 1978); State v. Porter Superior Court [274 Ind. 408], 412 N.E.2d 748 (Ind.1981); Ashland Publications Co. v. Asbury, 612 S.W.2d 749 (Ky.App.1980); Patuxent Pub. Corp. v. State, 48 Md.App. 689, 429 A.2d 554 (Md.Sp.App. 1981); Keene Pub. Corp. v. Cheshire County Superior Court, 119 N.H. 710, 406 A.2d 137 (N.H.1979); Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Leggett, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 399 N.E.2d 518, 423 N.Y.S.2d 630 (N.Y.1979); State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Phillips, 46 Ohio St.2d 457, 351 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 1976); Commonwealth v. Hayes, 489 Pa. 419, 414 A.2d 318 (Pa.1980); Rapid City Journal v. Circuit Court, 283 N.W.2d 563 (S.D.1979); Herald Ass'n Inc. v. Ellison, 138 Vt. 529, 419 A.2d 323 (Vt.1980): Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 222 Va. 574, 281 S.E.2d 915 (Va.1981): Federated Publications v. Kurtz, 94 Wash. 2d 51, 615 P.2d 440 (Wash.1980); State ex rel. Herald Mail Co. v. Hamilton [165 W.Va. 103], 267 S.E.2d 544 (W.Va.1980); Williams v. Stafford, 589 P.2d 322 (Wyo.1979); see also Revised Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Operation of the Jury System on the `Free Press-Free Trial' Issue, 87 F.R.D. 519 (1980); American Bar Association `Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice: Fair Trial and Free Press,' Standard 8-3.2 (2d ed. 1980)."
[3]  Wilson himself concedes "there is a limited First Amendment right to attend pretrial hearings in the courtroom." See Resp. Brief at 12.
[4]  In saying this, we note that we are sensitive to incidents of disparate treatment of racial minority group members, but emphasize that the First Amendment strictly forbids us from acting as arbiters of the correctness of the Daily Home's political stance and, therefore, we cannot and do not so act in this case. Rather, as stated, the content of the publicity is addressed only as a factor in deciding whether Wilson's rights will be prejudiced absent this particular closure order.
[*]  Justice Maddox did not hear oral arguments, but he has listened to the tapes of the arguments and has studied the record.