Title: STATE EX REL SMITH v DISTRICT COU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-218
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 1982

No. 82-218 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 THE STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., DANIEL PAUL SMITH, Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CASCADE COUNTY, HONORABLE JOEL G. ROTH, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator: Sandra K. Watts argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Mike Meioy argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: SEP 1 * Decided: DEG " 8 Filed: d - 1982 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant D a n i e l Smith a p p l i e d to t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l a f t e r r e s p o n d e n t , t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Judge Roth p r e s i d i n g , denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o e x c l u d e p u b l i c and p r e s s from a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . By h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t s e e k s a l t e r n a t i v e r e l i e f r e i t h e r (1) a n o r d e r r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n and c l o s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g u n t i l t h e motion to s u p p r e s s is denied or t h e case is complete; or ( 2 ) a n o r d e r v a c a t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r and remanding t h e cause f o r a f u l l e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s c l o s u r e motion. D a n i e l Smith is charged w i t h d e l i b e r a t e homicide i n connec- t i o n w i t h t h e October 3, 1981, s h o o t i n g d e a t h of Alfred L a P i e r , a Great F a l l s r e s i d e n t . Smith s e e k s s u p p r e s s i o n of c e r t a i n items o f e v i d e n c e t a k e n from h i s home and p e r s o n on t h e d a t e of h i s a r r e s t . I n h i s motion d e f e n d a n t c h a l l e n g e s t h e l a w f u l n e s s of h i s arrest, a s s e r t i n g a l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e , and t h e l a w f u l n e s s of t h e s e a r c h , a s s e r t i n g unreasonable s e a r c h w i t h o u t w a r r a n t or con- s e n t . A t t h e t i m e set f o r h e a r i n g on t h e s u p p r e s s i o n motion d e f e n s e c o u n s e l noted t h a t members of t h e p u b l i c and a Great F a l l s T r i b u n e r e p o r t e r were p r e s e n t i n t h e courtroom. Counsel t h e n made an oral motion to close t h e h e a r i n g to p u b l i c and p r e s s on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i r t r i a l r i g h t s would be substan- t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by d i s s e m i n a t i o n of e v i d e n c e t h a t might be s u p p r e s s e d . Defense c o u n s e l argued to t h e trial c o u r t t h a t under G r e a t F a l l s Tribune v. D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - .- Mont . -- - - , 608 P.2d 116, 37 St.Rep. 502, and American B a r A s s o c i a t i o n (ABA) S t a n d a r d s R e l a t i n g to F a i r T r i a l and F r e e P r e s s , S e c t i o n 3.1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g s h o u l d be c l o s e d . The S t a t e s a i d it had no o b j e c t i o n to a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . A t t h i s j u n c t u r e , Judge Roth t e m p o r a r i l y c l o s e d t h e h e a r i n g to t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s to g i v e d e f e n d a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y to make an o f f e r of p r o o f . Defense c o u n s e l made no formal o f f e r of p r o o f . I n s t e a d , she developed h e r argument t h a t c l o s u r e was p r o p e r under t h e Great - .- F a l l s T r i b u n e c a s e , t h e 1968 ABA s t a n d a r d , and G a n n e t t C o . , I n c . - - . - - - v . DePasquale ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 3 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 608, wherein t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d t h a t : (1) mem- b e r s of t h e p u b l i c have no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t under t h e S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o a t t e n d a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g on a motion to s u p p r e s s ; and ( 2 ) t h e N e w York t r i a l c o u r t gave p r o p e r d e f e r e n c e t o whatever r i g h t of access to c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t might be g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments. Judge Roth denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. Ruling from t h e bench, Judge Roth f i r s t acknowledged t h a t t h e Montana Supreme Court had n e i t h e r s q u a r e l y a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e of c l o s e d s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g s nor adopted t h e 1968 ABA s t a n d a r d p r o f f e r e d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , and s e c o n d l y , concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d to make a s u b s t a n t i a l showing t h a t d i s s e m i n a t i o n of in£ o r m a t i o n garnered a t a n open s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g would p r e j u d i c e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a t r i a l by an i m p a r t i a l j u r y . Judge Roth t h e n c o n t i n u e d t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g u n t i l such t i m e d e f e n d a n t could a p p l y to t h i s C o u r t f o r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f . Defendant f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on J u n e 23, 1982. The S t a t e f i l e d its response on J u l y 6 , 1982. Subsequently, t h e G r e a t F a l l s Tribune s o u g h t , and was g r a n t e d , l e a v e to a p p e a r as amicus c u r i a e . The amicus b r i e f was r e c e i v e d J u l y 1 6 , 1982, and j u r i s d i c t i o n was accepted J u l y 29, 1982. The C o u r t , s i t t i n g e n banc, heard o r a l argument September 1 4 , 1982. A twofold i s s u e is p r e s e n t e d to t h e Court: (1) w h e t h e r t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s can be excluded from a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g t o e n s u r e a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l : and ( 2 ) if a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g can be c l o s e d , under what s t a n d a r d s h o u l d c l o s u r e be determined . When t h i s Court l a s t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i n t e r f a c e between a d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l and t h e r i g h t of t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s t o o b s e r v e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e w a s b u t one United S t a t e s Supreme Court d e c i s i o n t h a t addressed s i m i - l a r concerns , Gannett C o . , I n c . v . DePasquale, s u p r a . The h i g h e s t c o u r t of t h e land s i n c e h a s rendered two d e c i s i o n s t h a t have f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d t h e c o n t o u r s of t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t s . An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Richmond Newspapers, I n c . v . V i r g i n i a ( 1980 ) , 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973, ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) , Globe Newspaper C o . v. S u p e r i o r C t . ( 1 9 8 2 ) , U.S. -- - - - . - , 1 0 2 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248, and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p bet- ween - G a n n e t t and Great --- F a l l s Tribune - is critical to r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e case a t b a r . I n G a n n e t t Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, s u p r a , t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t upheld a N e w York t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to e x c l u d e t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c from a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g i n a homicide prose- c u t i o n . G a n n e t t - i n t e r p r e t e d S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendment g u a r a n t e e s to a p u b l i c t r i a l t o be p e r s o n a l to t h e a c c u s e d , and n o t t o i n h e r e i n t h e p u b l i c any independent, e n f o r c e a b l e r i g h t to a t t e n d c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , or as i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g s . Although t h e c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e s t r o n g societal i n t e r e s t i n p u b l i c t r i a l s and t h e common l a w r u l e of open c r i m i n a l pro- c e e d i n g s , 443 U.S. a t 382-387, 99 S.Ct. a t 2907-2309, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 623-628, it e x p r e s s l y stopped s h o r t of d e c i d i n g t h a t t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s had a r i g h t of access to a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g under t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments. To t h e e x t e n t t h e r e may be a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dimension to a r i g h t of access, noted t h e c o u r t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had p r o p e r l y a s s e s s e d t h a t t h e i m p l i c a t e d r i g h t was outweighed by d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l . 443 U.S. a t 391-393, 99 S.Ct. a t 2911, 2912, 61 L.Ed.2d 628-630. S i x months a f t e r G a n n e t t , t h i s Court was p r e s e n t e d w i t h its f i r s t f a i r t r i a l - p u b l i c t r i a l case. -- Great F a l l s - T r i b u n e , s u p r a , r e v e r s e d a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o e x c l u d e p r e s s and p u b l i c from i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e examinations of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . W e h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t cannot restrict t h e r i g h t of any person t o o b s e r v e such p r o c e e d i n g s u n l e s s e x c l u s i o n of t h e p u b l i c be " a strict and i r r e p a r a b l e n e c e s s i t y to e n s u r e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l . " 608 P.2d a t 121, 37 St.Rep. a t 507. Our d e c i s i o n was n o t based upon G a n n e t t l s a r t i c u l a t e d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n open c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s or any common law r u l e of p u b l i c c o u r t proceeding b u t upon t h e " R i g h t to Know" p r o v i s i o n a r t i c u l a t e d i n Article 11, S e c t i o n 9 , of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . S u b j e c t to i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y demands or a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l , we determined t h a t any p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e media, h a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to o b s e r v e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s . 608 P.2d 119, 37 St.Rep. a t 505, 506. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s Court adopted what was t h e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a s t a n d a r d stricter t h a n t h a t of G a n n e t t , 608 P.2d a t 120, 37 St.Rep. a t 507, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court addressed t h e q u e s t i o n r e s e r v e d i n Gannett: - whether t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments g u a r a n t e e t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s a r i g h t of access to c r i m i n a l t r i a l s . A r i g h t of a c c e s s under t h e F i r s t Amendment and a p p l i e d t o t h e states by t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment, was recognized b y seven J u s t i c e s i n Richmond Newspapers, I n c . v . V i r g i n i a ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 6 5 L.Ed.2d 973. The case i n v o l v e d a s t a t e c o u r t o r d e r e x c l u d i n g t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s from a n e n t i r e t r i a l on f a i r t r i a l grounds. M r . Chief J u s t i c e B u r g e r , a u t h o r of t h e p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n i n Richmond -- Newspapers, wrote t h a t " [ a ] b s e n t an o v e r r i d i n g i n t e r e s t a r t i c u l a t e d i n f i n d i n g s , t h e t r i a l of a c r i m i n a l case must be open to t h e p u b l i c . " ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) 448 U.S. a t 581, 100 S.Ct. a t 2830, 65 L.Ed.2d a t 992. T h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l would c o n s t i t u t e such an i n t e r e s t was e v i d e n t ; t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t n e g l e c t e d to c o n s i d e r " v a r i o u s t e s t e d alter- n a t i v e s " to c l o s u r e which would s a t i s f y t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l demand o f f a i r n e s s was c r i t i c a l . 448 U.S. a t 581, 100 S.Ct. a t 2829, 2830, 65 L.Ed.2d a t 580, 581. I n t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g c l o s u r e of c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s , a d e f e n d a n t s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l was n o t t h e preeminent concern. Globe Newspaper C o . v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t , s u p r a , involved a con£ l i c t between t h e p u b l i c ' s r i g h t of access t o c r i m i n a l t r i a l s and a state s t a t u t e mandating c l o s u r e of t r i a l d u r i n g t e s t i m o n y of a minor rape v i c - t i m . J u s t i c e Brennan's m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n d e f i n i t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t under t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments " t h e p r e s s and g e n e r a l p u b l i c have a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of a c c e s s to c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , " 102 S.Ct. a t 2618, 73 L.Ed.2d a t 255 " t h e d e n i a l [of which must be] n e c e s s i t a t e d by a compelling governmental i n t e r e s t , and [be] n a r r o w l y t a i l o r e d to s e r v e t h a t i n t e r e s t . " 102 S.Ct. a t 2620, 73 L.Ed.2d a t 257. T h e r e , t h e i n t e r e s t s a s s e r t e d to j u s t i f y c l o s u r e were t h e p r o t e c t i o n of v i c t i m s from d i s c l o s u r e of s e n s i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e encouragement of r e p o r t i n g and t e s t i f y i n g by f u t u r e v i c t i m s . The Globe c o u r t was n o t persuaded t h a t e i t h e r i n t e r e s t j u s t i f i e d mandatory c l o s u r e ; t h e r e f ore, it r e v e r s e d t h e state c o u r t d e c i s i o n . From r e v i e w of t h e s e cases t h r e e c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn. F i r s t , a l t h o u g h both t h e f e d e r a l and Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n guaran- tee to members of t h e p u b l i c and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e p r e s s a r i g h t t o o b s e r v e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e scope of t h e respec- t i v e g u a r a n t e e s as y e t is n o t commensurate. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s c o n s t r u e d t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o p r o v i d e a r i g h t of access to c r i m i n a l t r i a l s ; a r i g h t of access to -- p r e t r i a l c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s h a s n o t been r e c o g n i z e d . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e broad language c o n t a i n e d i n t h e - - G r e a t F a l l s T r i b u n e case, " t h a t any p e r s o n h a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to o b s e r v e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , " 608 P.2d a t 119, 37 St.Rep. a t 505, most c e r t a i n l y encompasses p r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s as w e l l as t h e a c t u a l t r i a l . Secondly, i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e scope of access r i g h t s , t h e n a t u r e of t h e g u a r a n t e e under t h e two c o n s t i t u t i o n s is similar. Whether t h e b a s i s f o r t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c ' s r i g h t of a c c e s s be t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments to t h e United S t a t e C o n s t i t u - t i o n o r t h e "Right t o Know" p r o v i s i o n of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e g u a r a n t e e is not a b s o l u t e . I t can be p r o p e r l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d when t h e r i g h t o r i n t e r e s t a g a i n s t which it com- p e t e s is weighty or compelling. D o u b t l e s s l y , t h e r i g h t of a cri- m i n a l d e f e n d a n t to a t r i a l by an i m p a r t i a l j u r y is such a r i g h t . " 'Due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e accused r e c e i v e a t r i a l by an i m p a r t i a l j u r y f r e e from o u t s i d e in£ l u e n c e s . Given t h e p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f modern communications and t h e d i f f i c u l t y of e f f a c i n g p r e j u d i c i a l p u b l i c i t y from t h e minds o f t h e j u r o r s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s must t a k e s t r o n g measures to-ensGiFiiTthiZthe 5iaiFncFXG - - - - - - - - - -- -- - n e v e r weighed a g a i n s t t h e accused . . . I 11 - - - - . - Nebraska P r e s s A s s o c i a t i o n v. S t u a r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 427 U.S. 539, 553, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2800, 49 L.Ed.2d 683, 694, c i t i n g Sheppard v. Maxwell ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 333, 362-63, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1522, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, 620, (emphasis a d d e d ) . Though concluding t h a t it was not p r o p e r to close t h e pro- c e e d i n g i n t h e Great F a l l s Tribune case, t h i s Court i n t i m a t e d - - t h a t i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a f a i r trial is paramount to t h e p u b l i c ' s r i g h t t o know. The o p i n i o n s p e c i f i - c a l l y noted t h a t b r i e f c l o s u r e of i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e examina- t i o n s may be p r o p e r i f d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of v o i r d i r e it becomes n e c e s s a r y to a l l u d e t o i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . 608 P.2d a t 120, 37 St.Rep. a t 507. The d e c i s i o n a l s o r e f e r r e d t o a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n being t h a t c l o s u r e t h e n may be a p p r o p r i a t e to p r e v e n t d i s s e m i n a t i o n of t a i n t e d e v i d e n c e to t h e p o o l of p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . F i n a l l y , t h e q u e s t i o n is open-ended a s t o p r e c i s e l y what t h e f a i r t r i a l c l o s u r e s t a n d a r d is under f e d e r a l l a w . Globe Newspaper - C o . , is i m p o r t a n t because it is t h e f i r s t m a j o r i t y opi- n i o n r e c o g n i z i n g a f e d e r a l r i g h t of access t o c r i m i n a l t r i a l s , b u t it p r o v i d e s l i t t l e i n s i g h t as to what s t a n d a r d t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court would employ i n r e s o l v i n g a r i g h t of a c c e s s / f a i r t r i a l q u e s t i o n i n a p r e t r i a l c o n t e x t . The S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n s h i e l d i n g a minor rape v i c t i m from p u b l i c s c r u t i n y s i m p l y cannot be equated w i t h a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t ' s a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l . I t is t h e r e f o r e u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e "compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t / n a r r o w l y t a i l o r e d means" test would be a p p l i c a b l e i n a f a i r t r i a l s i t u a t i o n . What l i t t l e t h a t can be gleened from Richmond Newspapers, P I n c . is t h a t t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court p r o b a b l y w i l l e x p e c t t r i a l judges t o c o n s i d e r and d i s m i s s less r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o c l o s u r e b e f o r e it w i l l uphold t h e e x c l u s i o n of p u b l i c and p r e s s from a p r e t r i a l c r i m i n a l proceeding. Although t h e Burger o p i n i o n i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e are fewer s u i t a b l e alter- n a t i v e s to c l o s u r e i n a p r e t r i a l c o n t e x t , 448 U.S. a t 581, 100 S.Ct. a t 2830, 65 L.Ed.2d a t 992, it does not f o l l o w t h a t no a l t e r n a t i v e s to c l o s u r e w i l l e n s u r e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l i n a p r e t r i a l proceeding. R a t h e r t h a n d e v e l o p i n g t h e Great F a l l s T r i b u n e s t a n d a r d of - - - - - " s t r i c t and i r r e p a r a b l e n e c e s s i t y , " a s t a n d a r d which emanates from f e d e r a l cases whose c o n t i n u i n g v a l i d i t y is q u e s t i o n a b l e , t h i s Court w i l l f o l l o w t h e c o u r s e suggested by t h e S t a t e h e r e i n . I n s o d o i n g , w e j o i n t h e c o u r t s of Wyoming and Colorado i n a d o p t i n g , i n t o t o , Standard 8-3.2 o f t h e American B a r A s s o c i a t i o n S t a n d a r d s f o r C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e ( 2nd .Ed. 1978 ) as t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t t o r e c o n c i l e t h e competing i n t e r e s t of p u b l i c access and t r i a l f a i r n e s s . T h i s is a r e v i s e d and more e x a c t i n g s t a n d a r d t h a n t h e one proposed by d e f e n d a n t . Based upon t h e R i g h t t o Know p r o v i s i o n of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e r i g h t of a c c e s s recognized under t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments to t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , we h o l d t h a t t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s may be excluded from a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g o n l y i f d i s s e m i n a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d a t t h e h e a r i n g would create a c l e a r and p r e s e n t danger t o t h e f a i r n e s s of d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l and no r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e means c a n be u t i l i z e d to avoid t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of such i n f o r - m a t i o n . The C o u r t encourages t r i a l judges to seek f i r s t t h e v o l u n t a r y c o o p e r a t i o n of t h e news media r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s whenever p o s s i b l e . Upon being informed of t h e danger p r e s e n t e d by d i s s e m i n a t i o n of t a i n t e d e v i d e n c e to t h e community a t l a r g e as r e g a r d s d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l , we would hope t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e media would e x e r c i s e p r u d e n t judgment and d e l a y mass dissemina- t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n u n t i l t h e j u r y is impaneled or u n t i l an earlier t i m e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f a i r admi- n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e . The press is v e r y aware of t h e v i t a l f u n c t i o n it s e r v e s i n p r e s e r v i n g t h e q u a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y of t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s . " I n s t e a d of a c q u i r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about t r i a l s by f i r s t h a n d o b s e r v a t i o n or by word of mouth from t h o s e who a t t e n d e d , people now a c q u i r e it c h i e f l y through t h e p r i n t and e l e c t r o n i c media. I n a s e n s e , t h i s v a l i d a t e s t h e media claim of f u n c t i o n i n g a s s u r r o g a t e s f o r t h e p u b l i c . While media r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e n j o y t h e same r i g h t of access as t h e p u b l i c , t h e y of t e n are provided s p e c i a l s e a t i n g and p r i o r i t y of e n t r y so t h a t t h e y may report what people i n a t t e n d a n c e have s e e n and h e a r d . T h i s ' c o n t r i b u t e [ s ] t o p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e r u l e of law and to comprehension of t h e func- t i o n i n g of t h e e n t i r e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m . . . Nebraska P r e s s Assn. v . S t u a r t , 427 U.S., a t 587, [96 S.Ct. a t 2816, 49 L.Ed.2d a t 7141 (Brennan, J., c o n c u r r i n g i n judgment)." Richmond Newspapers, I n c . v . V i r g i n i a (1980 ) , 448 U.S. a t 572, 573, 100 S.Ct. a t 2825, 6 5 L.Ed.2d a t 987. A s w e l l , t h e p r e s s should be e s p e c i a l l y c o g n i z a n t of t h e havoc it c a n wreak i f it f u l f i l l s its r o l e i n a less t h a n r e s p o n s i b l e manner. S e e , e.g. Sheppard v. Maxwell, s u p r a ; Estes v. Texas s u i t a b l e agreement cannot be r e a c h e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t must t h e n proceed to h e a r i n g . I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a " c l e a r and p r e s e n t d a n g e r " e x i s t s t h e Court s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s might be c o n s i d e r e d : (1) e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e of g e n e r a l popu- l a t i o n who read newspapers o r who l i s t e n to o t h e r forms of media; ( 2 ) s t a t i s t i c s r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e of media r e a d e r s / l i s t e n e r s who read or f o l l o w homicide or c r i m i n a l stories; and ( 3 ) e x p e r t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e c a p a c i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l to d i s r e g a r d p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y , which might i n c l u d e t a i n t e d e v i d e n c e , when making an o b j e c t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f a c t s upon completion of a t r i a l . I f t h e evidence adduced s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e is a c l e a r and p r e s e n t danger to t r i a l f a i r n e s s , t h e c o u r t should t h e n h e a r evidence and argument a s to whether less r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r - n a t i v e s would s u f f i c e t o e n s u r e a f a i r t r i a l . The commentary to Standard 8-3.2 lists t h e f o l l o w i n g a s a l t e r n a t i v e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d : (1) c o n t i n u a n c e , ( 2 ) s e v e r a n c e , ( 3 ) change of venue, ( 4 ) change of v e n i r e , ( 5 ) i n t e n s i v e v o i r d i r e , ( 6 ) addi- t i o n a l preemptory c h a l l e n g e s , ( 7 ) s e q u e s t r a t i o n , and ( 8 ) admoni- t o r y i n s t r u c t i o n s to t h e j u r y . I n t h i s c a s e some of t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e o b v i o u s l y not a p p l i c a b l e . Here, b e f o r e t h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e s be c o n s i d e r e d , t h i s Court w i l l r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t and p a r t i e s to c o n s i d e r t h e e f f i c a c y of e n t e r i n g a pre- s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r which would f o r b i d mention d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g of s p e c i f i c items of evidence s o u g h t t o be s u p p r e s s e d . I f , a s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e e s s e n c e of t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n s a s to t h e law£ u l n e s s of t h e a r r e s t , or t h e l a w f u l n e s s of t h e s e a r c h , t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g c a n proceed w i t h o u t i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s p e c i f i c items s e i z e d . T h a t would not be t h e c a s e i n a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g r e l a t i n g to t h e adequacy of d e s c r i p t i o n of items contained i n a s e a r c h w a r r a n t ; i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n , t h e crux of t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g is t h e n a t u r e or t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e p a r t i c u l a r items s e i z e d . Only i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e is a " c l e a r and pre- s e n t danger" and t h a t less r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s , i n c l u d i n g a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , cannot p r o t e c t d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t to a f a i r t r i a l , should c l o s u r e be o r d e r e d . The Court e x p e c t s t h a t find- i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i l l be e n t e r e d to s u p p o r t a c l o s u r e o r d e r . I f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c i d e s t h a t c l o s u r e is n o t r e q u i r e d , t h e p u b l i c and p r e s s should have immediate access t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e c l o s e d h e a r i n g on t h e c l o s u r e motion. I f c l o s u r e is o r d e r e d , complete r e c o r d s of t h e c l o s u r e h e a r i n g and t h e subsequent s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g should be made and remain s e a l e d u n t i l completion of t h e t r i a l or an earlier t i m e con- s i s t e n t w i t h t r i a l f a i r n e s s . W e hereby v a c a t e t h e District C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n and remand t h i s cause f o r a hearing under t h e s t a n d a r d adopted by t h i s o p i n i o n . J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell. , ' , l ~ h e updated v e r s i o n of t h e A B A ' s f a i r t r i a l and f r e e p r e s s s t a n - d a r d states: " P r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s : e x c l u s i o n of p u b l i c and s e a l i n g of r e c o r d s "Except a s provided below, p r e t r i a l pro- c e e d i n g s and t h e i r r e c o r d s s h a l l be open to t h e p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e news media. I f a t t h e p r e t r i a l proceeding t e s t i m o n y or e v i d e n c e is adduced t h a t is l i k e l y to t h r e a t e n t h e f a i r n e s s of a t r i a l , t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r s h a l l a d v i s e those pre- s e n t of t h e danger and s h a l l seek t h e volun- t a r y c o o p e r a t i o n of t h e news media i n d e l a y i n g d i s s e m i n a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n by means of p u b l i c communication u n t i l t h e impaneling of t h e j u r y or u n t i l a n e a r l i e r t i m e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f a i r admi- n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e . The p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r may c l o s e a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , b a i l h e a r i n g , or any o t h e r p r e t r i a l proceeding, i n c l u d i n g a motion to s u p p r e s s , and may s e a l t h e record o n l y i f : " ( a ) t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e p r e t r i a l proceeding and its record would c r e a t e a c l e a r and p r e s e n t danger t o t h e f a i r - n e s s of t h e t r i a l , and " ( b ) t h e p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t of such i n f o r - mation on t r i a l f a i r n e s s cannot be avoided by any r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e means. "The d e f e n d a n t may move t h a t a l l o r p a r t of t h e proceeding be closed to t h e p u b l i c ( i n c l u d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e news media), o r , with t h e c o n s e n t of t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r may t a k e such a c t i o n sua s p o n t e o r a t t h e s u g g e s t i o n of t h e prosecu- t i o n . Whenever under t h i s r u l e a l l or p a r t of any p r e t r i a l proceeding is held i n chambers or o t h e r w i s e c l o s e d to t h e p u b l i c a complete r e c o r d s h a l l be k e p t and made a v a i l a b l e to t h e p u b l i c f o l l o w i n g t h e completion of t r i a l or e a r l i e r i f c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t r i a l f a i r n e s s . "