Document: 464 U.S. 501 104 S.Ct. 819 78 L.Ed.2d 629 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Petitionerv.SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY. No. 82-556. Argued Oct. 12, 1983. Decided Jan. 18, 1984. Syllabus Before the voir dire examination of prospective jurors began at a trial in California Superior Court for rape and murder teenage girl, petitioner moved that be open to public press. The State opposed motion, arguing if press were present, juror responses would lack candor necessary assure fair trial. judge agreed permitted attend "general" but not "individual" proceedings. All approximately three days 6-week was thus closed public. After jury empaneled, release complete transcript proceedings, both defense counsel prosecutor argued violate jurors' right privacy. court denied motion and, after defendant had been convicted sentenced death, petitioner's second application transcript. Petitioner then sought Appeal writ mandate compel vacate order closing petition denied, Supreme request hearing. Held: 1. guarantees proceedings criminal trials cover potential jurors. Pp. 505-510. (a) historical evidence reveals process selection has presumptively with exceptions only good cause shown. presumptive openness England carried over into colonial America, common practice America when Constitution adopted. 505-508. (b) Openness enhances basic fairness appearance so essential confidence justice system. Public vindicate concerns victims community knowing offenders are being brought account their conduct by fairly openly selected. Closed although absolutely precluded, must rare shown outweighs value openness. presumption may overcome an overriding interest based on findings closure is preserve higher values narrowly tailored serve interest. 508-510. 2. rebutted this case. There no support court's conclusion proceeding threaten defendant's interests Even adequate closure, orders denying access failed consider whether alternatives available protect interests. To same time legitimate privacy, should inform jurors, once general nature sensitive questions made known them, those individuals believing questioning will prove damaging because embarrassment, properly opportunity present problem camera record. When limited ordered, constitutional protected holding satisfied later making within reasonable time, determines disclosure can accomplished while safeguarding juror's valid privacy rise level part sealed, or name withheld, person from embarrassment. 510-513. Vacated remanded. James D. Ward, Riverside, Cal., petitioner. Glenn Robert Salter, respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion court. 1 We granted certiorari decide 2 * Albert Greenwood Brown, Jr., tried death Court. began, petitioner, Press-Enterprise Co., contended absolute trial, asserted commenced 3 "general dire." He stated "individual regard qualifications any other special areas feel some . private. ." App. 93. consumed six weeks all 4 At oral argument described dire: 5 "Most them little moment. few, however, which personal problems discussed could somewhat as far publication particular individual's situations concerned." 103. 6 Counsel Brown agreed, adding answered under "implied promise confidentiality." 111. concluding follows: 7 "I agree much what People's have said I also, regardless public's know, also that's rather difficult performing civic duty putting private information just think there certain prevail people limitations, stage, up individual sequestered without prejudice." 121. 8 again applied In application, stated: 9 "The questioned relating past experiences, most dull boring, experiences do appear appropriate discussion." 39. 10 denied. certiorari. --- ----, 103 813, 74 1012 (1983). reverse. II 11 case places factfinding function twelve unless statute consent fixed lesser number waived. itself matter importance, simply adversaries Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 555, 569, 100 2814, 2823, 65 973 (1980), plurality summarized evolution we know it today concluded "at our organic laws adopted, here long open." A review helpful purposes. It that, since development jury, A. 12 roots reach back before Norman Conquest cases "moots" town meeting kind body such local hundred county court.1 Attendance virtually compulsory freemen community, who represented "patria," "country," rendering judgment. aspect "almost incident trials, presence already insured large public."2 13 As system evolved years Conquest, came small segment representing obligation freeman relaxed; character including selection, remained unchanged. Later, during fourteenth fifteenth centuries, became impartial trier facts, owing period, allowing challenges.3 W. Holdsworth, History English Law 332, 335 (7th ed. 1956). Since then, accused generally enjoyed challenge outset trial.4 14 Although few contemporary accounts day,5 one early record written 1565 "[i]n towne house, place." T. Smith, De Republica Anglorum 96 (Alston 1906). Smith explained "there nothing put writing enditement": 15 "All rest doone openlie Judges, Justices, enquest, prisoner, many come neare heare it, depositions witnesses given aloude, men mouth depositors saide." Id., 101 (emphasis added). 16 If accept appears beginning sixteenth century, selected 17 present. calling "telleth comming, [thereby] giveth lesson people." Id. 96-97 indictment read; pleaded guilty, called forward, one, allowed make his challenges. 98. makes clear entire proceeded "openly, xii [12 jurors], parties [others] heare." 79 18 This gave assurance attending others able observe enhanced confidence. bystanders served yet another purpose according Blackstone. challenges kept sufficient qualified appearing "either party pray tales." Blackstone, supra, 364; see M. Hale, Common 342 (6th 1820). "tales" balance supply deficiency.6 19 England, surprisingly, America. For example, several noted need talesmen Thomas Preston William Wemms, two British soldiers charged so-called Boston Massacre 1770.7 B 20 purposes, how allocate "right" between public, view component inherent benefitting both, crucial. No ranks than But primacy accused's separate everyone promotes fairness. 21 plays important role administration did centuries separation England. lies fact actually standards observed; sure knowledge anyone free gives established procedures followed deviations become known. U.S., 569-571, S.Ct., 2823-2824. 22 sometimes "community therapeutic value." 570, 2823. Criminal acts, especially violent crimes, often provoke concern, even outrage hostility; turn generates urge retaliate desire done. See Reik, Compulsion Confess 288-295, 408 (1959). Whether viewed retribution otherwise irrelevant. aware law enforced functioning, outlet provided these understandable reactions emotions. Proceedings held secret deny frustrate broad interest; contrast, United States Hasting, 1974, 1979, 76 (1983); Morris Slappy, 1610, 1617, 75 610 23 "People society demand infallibility institutions, they prohibited observing." 572, 2824. openness.8 Globe Newspaper Co. Court, 457 596, 102 2613, 73 248 (1982), that: 24 "[T]he circumstances barred limited; State's justification weighty one. Where attempts inhibit information, denial necessitated compelling governmental interest, interest." 606-607, 2620. 25 articulated along specific enough reviewing determine entered. now III 26 closed, media requests denied.9 its transcript: whose "special Supra, 504. Of course fundamental Sixth Amendment warrant prolonged unsupported showing threatened interests;10 hence possible conclude warranted.11 testimony guard. Absent consideration constitutionally close dire. 27 may, circumstances, give interrogation touches deeply matters reasons keeping out domain. involved concerning alleged girl. Some persons. example might privately she, member her family, raped declined seek prosecution embarassment emotional trauma very episode. balanced against historic process. 28 times maintain control array 29 By requiring affirmative request, ensure basis belief infringes significant minimize risk unnecessary closure. exercise sound discretion lead excusing service. 30 incredible considering Later stating "most information" "dull boring." Those parts reasonably entitled sealed sweeping order; explain why material 31 Assuming protectible answers, explanation deserving protection. Nor he disclose substance answers preserving anonymity involved. 32 Thus failure articulate requisite specificity total suppression seal protected. IV 33 judgment vacated, remanded inconsistent opinion. 34 ordered. 35 BLACKMUN, concurring. 36 erred refusing nondisclosure write separately emphasize my understanding does decide, nor require address, "right jurors." Ante, 510. 37 Certainly, required world highly embarrassing duty. juror, upon answer posed him dire, expectation, rising status right, questions. Nixon Administrator General Services, 433 425, 458, 97 2777, 2797, 53 867 (1977); Whalen Roe, 429 589, 599, 869, 876, 51 64 (1977).1 38 am concerned recognition unnecessarily complicate lives judges attempting proceeding. Could disagreed judge's determination expectation refuse confidentiality until superior tribunal declared unreasonable? ever personal, relevant, question, ground outweighed know? pose assume existence carefully implications assumption. 39 rely seeking right. assuming failing justifying refusal More important, recognized, protecting encourage honest questions.2 similar trial—to honesty future—that almost always coextensive own Thus, assertable prevent His case, cases, fully through encouraging full cooperation. 40 With qualifications, join Court's weighed determining portions off day conditions rises 41 STEVENS, 42 protection upholds found First Amendment,1 provision Sixth.2 advanced claim violated "trial" meaning Amendment. distinction official necessarily dispositive, evaluating issues. premised efficaciously conducted. question decides today—"whether open—focuses backdrop enacted." 509, n. 8. 43 focus commanded underpinning effective judicial administration; Amendment's broader. "common core assuring freedom communication functioning government," 575, 2826, (1980) (plurality opinion), underlies decision provides members "from abridgment rights about operation government, Judicial Branch." 584, 2831 (STEVENS, J., concurring). id., 587-588, 2833 (BRENNAN, concurring judgment). POWELL written: 44 "What stake societal discussion affairs. guarantee more rightly treasured ability debate resolve destiny." Saxbe Washington Post 417 843, 862, 94 2811, 2821, 514 (1974) (dissenting opinion).3 45 principle endorsed (1982). 46 "Underlying 'a major affairs.' Mills Alabama, 384 214, 218 [86 1434, 1436, 484] (1966). offering protection, serves citizen effectively participate contribute republican form self-government." 604, 2618.4 47 follows cannot succeed positive contribution self-governance. Here, help improve process, thereby enabling critical workings take place. therefore, believe, entirely identify avoiding lengthy issue ante, 510, 9. Surely hidden view.5 48 not, course, mean unlimited. Indeed, contexts implicitly endorsed, plain.6 recognizes, provide limitation 511-513. 515-516 (BLACKMUN, source preclude frank examine content censored whether, extent, remain drawing lines begins, least limits reference subject arguably probe worthy safely performed compromising mission securing meaningful governance, regulation abridgement context, others, "a line drawn violating Government's paramount neutrality communication." Young American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 50, 70, 2440, 2452, 49 310 (1976) opinion).7 us, correctly explains, doubt impermissibly rule secrecy. Accordingly, 50 MARSHALL, result reached stress aspects diminished "deeply matters" likely elicited 511. policies underlying rights, 572-573, 2824-2825 593-597, 2836-2838 judgment), severely jeopardized courts conceal bears impartially weigh presented them. Cf. Newspaper, 606, 2620 ("Public scrutiny quality safeguards integrity ."). Therefore, prior issuing order, obliged show constitutes restrictive means state where imposed, preferable method reconciling defendants redact transcripts way disclosing responses. 513. Only extraordinary response permanently excluded salutary 52 Also, compelled note strong disagreement gratuitous comments length cases. states "We fail [six weeks], undermines legal profession. favorable advocates, privileges abused. Properly conducted inconceivable extend period. We, note, unknown months." 54 extended too period Not facts venture confident ruling question. aware, cast considerable majority's Jr. interracial sexual attack murder.1 Given history continuing legacy racism country, alone suggest greater usual amount inquiry needed obtain find "inconceivable" legitimately weeks. 55 Similarly, absence presently wrong assume, majority opinion, elaborate time-consuming occurred "in profession." Ibid. all, capital involving bound arouse heightened affected community. situation sort, use unusually well be, lessened courts, respect judiciary's unshakeable commitment ideal due persons serious crimes.2 56 Furthermore, violates federal law, strays beyond proper lectures best structure authority forbid devoting inordinate ensuring unbiased. 57 foregoing reasons, Pollock, Select Essarys Anglo-American Legal 88, 89 (1907). Radin, Right Trial, Temp.L.Q. 381, 388 (1932); Commentaries 349 (13th 1800). 1352, enacted permit petit participation "indicators" presenting jury. Edw. 3, C. § 5; Plunkett, Concise 109 (1929). Objections grounds hostility. 324-25 Peter Cook's Har.St.Tr. 736, 738-740 (O.B.1696), himself attempted directly sustain "You ask Voyer Dire, [the juror] Interest Cause; shall you Liberty fitly qualified, having Freehold Value." 736. And Harrison's 309, 313 (O.B.1660), reporter remarks persistence challenging provoked laughter courtroom: "Here People seemed laugh," writes, tenth peremptory challenge. 565 5, 2821 surprising trials. Historians commented Anglo-Saxon "deal novel uncertain, normal undoubted rules law. Why trouble every village elder knows?" E. Jenks, Short 3-4 (2d 1922). Hen. 8, ch. (1543), empowered award "tales de circumstantibus, court, joined try cause." 365. issued writ, sheriff forward "talesmen" among courtroom. These others. Papers John Adams (1965) (quoting Palfrey Wilkes, 1770, Elsey, "John Wilkes Palfrey," Col.Soc.Mass., Pubns. 411, 423-425 (1943)); Acting Governor Hutchinson C.B. Mayo ed., Additions Hutchinson's 32); 100. That e.g., double jeopardy, begins first witness, Wade Hunter, 336 684, 688, 69 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949), Downum States, 372 734, 83 1033, (1963), sworn bear here. attachment jeopardy represent perception action point power retrace steps checked "countervailing clause Fifth Amendment." Velazquez, 490 F.2d 29, (CA2 1973); accord Jorn, 400 470, 480, 91 547, 554, 543 (1971). address—whether First, Fifth, enacted. length, months. previously warranted. justice, impose limitations '[T]he exerted unwarrantedly abridge opportunities thought immemorially associated resort places.' " 581 2830 Cox New Hampshire, 312 61 762, 85 1049 (1941)). contends respondent's requirement Hovey Cal.3d 1, 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301 "outside fellow venirepersons." docket sheet merely states, admitted "is part, record." hearing unenlightening score. Hovey. unclear justified order. Hovey, focused studies indicated prejudiced indication affect trial." Cal.3d, 80-81, 1301. believe receives notice serve, either actual reasonable, says Despite voluntarily eye, event. Craig Harney, 331 367, 374, 67 1249, 1254, 1546 (1947). (1982); (1980); Gannett DePasquale, 443 368, 99 2898, 608 (1979). And, today, like itself, indicates asked impartially. On hand, exercised intrusive Sprouce Commonwealth, Va.Cas. 375 (1823) ("In tending fix infamy, disgrace, ."); Ryder State, Ga. 528, S.E. 246, (1897) ("Certainly, neither involve breach privilege doing tend incriminate, him"). recent relied, limit safety irrelevant questioning. See, Barnes, 604 121, 140 1979), cert. 446 907 Taylor, 562 1345, 1355 (CA2), sub nom. Salley 432 909, 2958, 1083 (1977). transcript, relied interpreted 511, 11, additional honesty. event, consistent "Congress respecting establishment religion, prohibiting thereof; abridging speech, press; peaceably assemble, Government redress grievances." Const., Amdt. is, settled Fourteenth applicable speech judges. Nebraska Press Assn. Stuart, 539, 2791, 683 (1976). "In prosecutions, enjoy speedy was, construed (1979), vicariously orderly doctrine foreshadowed JUSTICE POWELL'S certainly delayed decided was. Houchins KQED, 438 30, 31-32, 98 2588, 2605, 553 (1978) dissenting) (footnotes omitted): preservation flow recognized objective Constitution. addition receive elects communicate, function. Our self-government assumes informed citizenry. Madison wrote: 'A popular Government, acquiring Prologue Farce Tragedy, or, perhaps both. Knowledge forever govern ignorance: Governors, arm themselves gives.' Writings (G. Hunt 1910). sufficient, channels restraints. Without acquisition institutions prisons large, self-governance contemplated Framers stripped substance." objection Such rationale today's decision. Zemel Rusk, 381 1271, 179 (1966) said: speak publish carry unrestrained gather information." 17, 1281 supplied). Branzburg Hayes, 665, 92 2646, 626 (1972), rejecting suggestion "that news gathering qualify protection", 681, 2656, reporter's testify grand Farber, Content Regulation Amendment: Revisionist View, 68 Geo.L.J. 727 Redish, Distinction Analysis, Stan.L.Rev. 113 (1981); Schauer, Categories Play Three Acts, Vand.L.Rev. 265, 282-296 Shiffrin, Defamatory Non-Media Speech Methodology, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 915, 942-963 (1978); Stephan, Discrimination, Va.L.Rev. 203 Note, Dimensions Free Expression, Harv.L.Rev. 1854 around suit revolves "the issues [sic] presented—the strangulation killing fifteen year old white girl school, black man twenty-six age, conviction forcible adolescent caucasion girl." Brief Joseph Myers (trial Jr.) Amicus Curiae unlikely exists consensus regarding contours Certainly Ham South Carolina, 409 524, 848, (1973). Babcock, Voir Dire: Preserving "Its Wonderful Power", 545 (1975) (limiting undercuts litigants utilize works relative disadvantage poor resources jurors).

Category: 2