Title: Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
THE DAILY PRESS, INC., ET AL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v. 
Record No. 120858 
 
 
 
JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   February 28, 2013 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 
H. Vincent Conway, Jr., Judge 
 
This appeal involves a circuit court order sealing certain 
exhibits introduced during a criminal trial.  First, we 
consider whether this appeal is moot because the sealing order 
no longer is in effect and the exhibits now are available for 
public inspection.  Having concluded that it is not moot, we 
consider whether the sealing order violates constitutional and 
statutory guarantees of public access to criminal proceedings. 
I. 
BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW 
In August 2010, a grand jury in the City of Newport News 
indicted Lillian Callender and her boyfriend, Michael Stoffa, 
for felony child neglect of Callender’s seventeen-month-old and 
twenty-seven-month-old daughters, and for second-degree murder 
of Callender’s seventeen-month-old daughter.  Callender and 
Stoffa were tried separately.  Following bench trials on 
January 24 and May 26, 2011, respectively, Callender and Stoffa 
were found guilty of all three charges. 
In the meantime, in March 2011, prior to Callender’s 
sentencing and Stoffa’s trial, Ashley Kelly, a reporter for The 
 
2 
Daily Press, Inc., requested permission of the clerk of the 
circuit court to review the file related to Callender’s trial.  
Specifically, Kelly requested to review the trial exhibits, 
including photographs of and an autopsy report concerning the 
deceased child.  The clerk denied this request and, on March 
28, 2011, the circuit court entered an order sealing the entire 
Callender file from public inspection until the conclusion of 
Callender’s and Stoffa’s cases (the “March 28 order”). 
The Daily Press and Kelly (collectively, “Daily Press”) 
filed a consolidated motion to intervene and motion for 
withdrawal of the sealing order.  The circuit court granted the 
motion to intervene and rescinded the March 28 order, 
concluding that the order “was overbroad in sealing the entire 
file.”  However, the court expressed concern over protecting 
the rights of Stoffa and the Commonwealth in Stoffa’s pending 
trial.  Thus, it allowed the attorneys for Callender and the 
Commonwealth “to withdraw the original exhibits from the 
Callender file to be used in the trial of the co-defendant’s 
[Stoffa’s] case, said exhibits to be returned to the Callender 
file should an appeal be noted in her case (the “April 20 
order”).”1  Daily Press requested that photocopies of the 
withdrawn exhibits remain in the public file, but the court 
instead directed that photocopies of the original exhibits be 
                                                 
1 Callender filed an appeal in July 2011.  
 
3 
placed in the file under seal.  The court subsequently ordered 
that the original exhibits be returned to the public file at 
the conclusion of Stoffa’s trial (the “April 22 order”). 
Daily Press petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of 
mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate the April 22 
order.  It argued that the April 22 order was contrary to the 
constitutional and statutory protections affording public 
access to criminal proceedings and was not the least 
restrictive alternative available to the court.  The Court of 
Appeals denied the mandamus petition and, in light of that 
ruling, Daily Press filed a petition for appeal with the Court 
of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals granted that petition, but 
subsequently held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear 
appeals from sealing orders.  Daily Press, Inc. v. 
Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 213, 222-23, 725 S.E.2d 737, 741-42 
(2012).  It transferred the appeal to this Court pursuant to 
Code § 8.01-677.1.  Id.  We awarded Daily Press this appeal. 
II. 
THE MOOTNESS ISSUE 
The April 22 order expired by its own terms at the 
conclusion of Stoffa’s trial.2  Furthermore, when Callender 
                                                 
2 Stoffa’s trial concluded in May 2011.  The Court of 
Appeals denied Stoffa’s petition for appeal in April 2012, and 
this Court refused Stoffa’s second-tier petition for appeal in 
August 2012.  Thus, even if the “conclusion” of Stoffa’s 
criminal trial included any direct appeals in addition to the 
circuit court prosecution, that case has concluded. 
 
4 
appealed her convictions in July 2011, the original exhibits 
were returned to the public file and sent to the Court of 
Appeals.  Thus, Daily Press now has been able to review the 
exhibits.  Consequently, the Commonwealth argues that the case 
is moot. 
 
Generally, a case is moot and must be dismissed when the 
controversy that existed between litigants has ceased to exist: 
Whenever it appears or is made to appear that 
there is no actual controversy between the litigants, 
or that, if it once existed, it has ceased to do so, 
it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to 
proceed to the formal determination of the apparent 
controversy, but to dismiss the case.  It is not the 
office of courts to give opinions on abstract 
propositions of law . . . .  Only real controversies 
and existing rights are entitled to invoke the 
exercise of their powers. 
 
E.C. v. Va. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 283 Va. 522, 530, 722 
S.E.2d 827, 831 (2012) (quoting Franklin v. Peers, 95 Va. 602, 
603, 29 S.E. 321, 321 (1898)).  However, the Supreme Court of 
the United States has recognized that the mootness doctrine may 
be inapplicable when a proceeding is short-lived by nature.  
See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 
563 (1980); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 377 
(1979); Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 546-47 
(1976).  “If the underlying dispute is capable of repetition, 
yet evading review, it is not moot.”  Richmond Newspapers, 
 
5 
Inc., 448 U.S. at 563 (internal quotation marks and citation 
omitted). 
The Commonwealth argues that this exception to the 
mootness doctrine should be applied sparingly.  See Virginia 
Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554, 633 
S.E.2d 203, 204-05 (2006).  We agree.  But the controversy 
between the parties in this case fits squarely within the 
exception. 
First, Daily Press, as the publisher of a daily newspaper 
that routinely covers cases in the Hampton Roads area, will be 
subjected to similar sealing orders.  See Gannett Co., 443 U.S. 
at 377-78.  The April 22 order itself reflected the circuit 
court’s routine administrative process.  The trial judge, 
noting that he was “the Chief Judge for this circuit,” stated, 
“The [c]ourt is familiar with many cases in which the 
Commonwealth has [moved] to withdraw original exhibits until 
all defendants have been prosecuted, and the [c]ourt has 
frequently granted that motion.”  (Emphasis added.)  “[T]he 
[c]ourt has often administratively allowed [evidence admitted 
in the trial of a defendant], upon proper documentation, to be 
withdrawn” until subsequent prosecutions of related defendants 
are completed.  The trial judge also referred to “secur[ing] 
the withdrawal of any exhibits by the means customarily used.”  
 
6 
(Emphasis added.)  These statements leave no doubt that this 
controversy is capable of repetition.   
Second, if we decline to address the issues in this case 
on grounds of mootness, the dispute clearly will evade review.  
The April 22 order is “by nature short-lived.”  See Nebraska 
Press Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 547.  By its express terms, the order 
expired at the conclusion of Stoffa’s trial.  The Commonwealth 
argues that there was ample time to review the order before the 
end of Stoffa’s trial.  We disagree.  Criminal trials are 
typically of short duration and, as in this case, sealing 
orders will frequently be lifted before our appellate review is 
completed.3 
More importantly, the Commonwealth’s argument ignores the 
contemporaneous need of a daily newspaper for access to 
criminal proceedings.  See Gannett Co., 443 U.S. at 380.  The 
benefits of public access to criminal proceedings have been 
recognized since before the Magna Carta.  Such access ensures 
that proceedings are conducted fairly, discourages perjury, 
safeguards against secret bias or partiality, and imparts 
legitimacy to the decisions of our judiciary.4  See Richmond 
                                                 
3 The fact that Daily Press was unable to obtain expedited 
review of the April 22 order through a writ of mandamus 
underscores the evasive nature of the present dispute. 
4 Significant societal value has also been recognized from 
public access to criminal proceedings:  when a shocking crime 
occurs, a community reaction of outrage typically follows, and 
 
7 
Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 569-70.  Yet, to work 
effectively, public access must be contemporaneous – the public 
must be able to scrutinize the judicial process as it takes 
place.  Newspapers, such as Daily Press, serve as “surrogates 
for the public.”  Id. at 573.  They are “the first rough draft 
of history,”5 providing immediate descriptions of events as they 
unfold.  However, the newsworthiness of a particular story is 
often fleeting.  To delay or postpone disclosure undermines the 
benefits of public scrutiny and may have the same result as 
complete suppression. 
In this case, Daily Press was prohibited from accessing 
the exhibits from March until July 2011, when Callender 
appealed her convictions and the exhibits were returned to the 
public file.  Unlike in Commonwealth v. Harley, 256 Va. 216, 
504 S.E.2d 852 (1998) and Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 
415, 598 S.E.2d 754 (2004), where the issues on appeal were 
moot because the appellants suffered no harm, Daily Press was 
harmed at the time its access was restricted.  Neither the 
expiration of the sealing order nor the later availability of 
the exhibits cured this deprivation of the right to 
                                                                                                                                                           
thereafter the open process of justice serves an important 
prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern 
and emotion.  See Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 570-
71. 
5 Alan Barth popularized this phrase as an editorial writer 
for the Washington Post in the 1940s.  
 
8 
contemporaneously review the files.  The Commonwealth cannot 
use the mootness doctrine to sidestep this deprivation.  If 
every appeal of a sealing order were moot upon the expiration 
of the order, the right to contemporaneous review would have no 
value, causing irreparable injury to the public’s interest in 
open trials.  We therefore conclude that the controversy before 
us is not moot.  We now turn to the merits.6 
III. THE MERITS 
Daily Press argues that the April 22 order violated its 
constitutional and statutory right of access to criminal 
proceedings.  We agree.   
A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS 
The public’s constitutional right of access to criminal 
proceedings and records is well-established.  The Supreme Court 
of the United States has held that “the right to attend 
criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First 
Amendment.”7  Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 580.  This 
                                                 
6 The Commonwealth now concedes that the sealing order was 
erroneous.  However, we do not allow parties to define Virginia 
law by their concessions.  See Tuggle v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 
99, 111 n.5, 334 S.E.2d 838, 846 n.5 (1985); Logan v. 
Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 172, 622 S.E.2d 771, 773 (2005) 
(en banc) (“Our fidelity to the uniform application of law 
precludes us from accepting concessions of law made on 
appeal.”).  Consequently, we will consider the merits.  
7 Daily Press asserts that it has a constitutional right of 
access under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States and Article I, § 12 of the Constitution of 
Virginia.  These provisions are virtually identical.  See, 
 
9 
constitutional right of access extends to the inspection of 
documents filed in such proceedings.  Globe Newspaper Co. v. 
Commonwealth, 264 Va. 622, 628, 570 S.E.2d 809, 812 (2002). 
Although the right of access to criminal proceedings is of 
constitutional stature, it is not absolute.  See Nebraska Press 
Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 570.  However, the circumstances in which 
criminal trial exhibits can be sealed are limited.  The 
public’s right of access can only be denied upon a strong 
showing of a compelling governmental interest, and any closure 
must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  Globe 
Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982). 
The governmental interest asserted here as the basis for 
the sealing order was Stoffa’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair 
trial.  In assessing whether closure is appropriate, there is a 
presumption in favor of openness.  Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 
448 U.S. at 573.  This presumption can only be overcome if 
specific findings are made that: (1) there is a substantial 
probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be 
prejudiced by publicity and that closure would prevent that 
                                                                                                                                                           
e.g., Black v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 764, 785, 553 S.E.2d 738, 
750 (2001) (Hassell, C.J., dissenting) (observing that “[t]he 
freedom of speech guaranteed by Article I, § 12 of the 
Constitution of Virginia is co-extensive with the protections 
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States”), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 
538 U.S. 343 (2003).  Thus, for purposes of this opinion, we 
make no distinction between them. 
 
10 
prejudice; and (2) reasonable alternatives to closure cannot 
adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights.  Press-
Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 14 (1986).  To 
ensure stringent safeguarding of the constitutional rights at 
stake, courts are required to justify any decision to close 
with specific reasons and findings on the record.  Id. at 13.  
We will review such findings de novo.  In re Charlotte 
Observer, 882 F.2d 850, 853 (4th Cir. 1989). 
In this case, the circuit court failed to make specific 
findings necessary to justify the sealing order.  The court’s 
rationale for sealing the exhibits was the possibility that 
they might be used in Stoffa’s impending trial.  The court 
expressed concerns over (1) potential prejudice from 
publication of the information contained in the exhibits; and 
(2) physical damage to the original exhibits that could affect 
their admissibility in Stoffa’s trial.  These rationales were 
speculative and not supported by particularized factual 
findings. 
First, there was no evidence that publication of the 
information contained in the exhibits would prejudice Stoffa’s 
right to a fair trial, or that sealing the exhibits would 
prevent any such prejudice.  At the time of the March 28 and 
April 22 orders, Stoffa was scheduled to be tried without a 
jury, which made concerns over tainting the jury pool 
 
11 
irrelevant.8  Furthermore, while protecting the original 
exhibits from damage was a valid concern, the April 22 order 
was not the least restrictive means to satisfy it.  The court 
could have protected the rights of Stoffa and the Commonwealth, 
while also protecting the public’s right of access, by allowing 
the original exhibits to be withdrawn but requiring photocopies 
of the exhibits to remain in the public file. 
B. CODE § 17.1-208 
Daily Press also argues that the April 22 order violated 
the statutory presumption of open court records.  Code § 17.1-
208 explicitly states that any records and papers maintained by 
the clerk “shall be open to inspection by any person.”  With 
respect to our analysis, Code § 17.1-208’s statutory 
presumption of access is equivalent to the constitutional right 
of access.  Court documents can only be sealed on the basis of 
“an interest so compelling that it cannot be protected 
reasonably by some measure other than a protective order,” and 
“any such order must be drafted in the manner least restrictive 
of the public’s interest.”  Shenandoah Publ’g House, Inc. v. 
Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 259, 368 S.E.2d 253, 256 (1988). 
                                                 
8 Stoffa subsequently could have elected to be tried by a 
jury.  However, this possibility alone was not a sufficient 
rationale for sealing the exhibits.  The court could have 
considered concerns regarding a potential jury at a later date, 
through less restrictive alternatives such as extensive voir 
dire or jury instructions addressing prejudice.  See Press-
Enterprise Co., 478 U.S. at 15. 
 
12 
For the same reasons that the April 22 order violated the 
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of 
Virginia, it also violated Code § 17.1-208.  There was no 
showing of a compelling governmental interest that justified 
permitting the exhibits to be withdrawn from the Callender file 
and copies of those exhibits to be placed under seal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we will vacate the order of the circuit 
court. 
Vacated.