Opinion ID: 1177818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Mandamus Question Summarized

Text: Summarizing the discussion of whether or not mandamus in the district court is the proper way to reach the issue of the propriety of pretrial closure, we summarize as follows: Mandamus cannot be utilized to overrule an inferior judicial tribunal's decision where the decision calls for the exercise of judicial discretion. § 1-30-102, W.S. 1977, supra; Williams, supra; and Marsh, supra. Under the facts of this case, as revealed by the record, and particularly with respect to the officer's affidavit to which Commissioner Feeney draws attention in his decision letter, the Commissioner's discretion must necessarily come into play on the issues of whether or not an open or closed hearing will serve to protect the fair-trial constitutional rights of the defendants and whether the prejudicial effect of this information upon trial fairness can be avoided by any reasonable alternative means. In other words, by reason of this affidavit and the potential for its normal utilization in ordinary preliminary-hearing affairs, the Commissioner must call upon his discretion to decide whether or not its introduction and attendant usage would `create a clear and present danger to the fairness of the trial, and ... [if] the prejudicial effect of such information on the trial fairness cannot be avoided by any reasonable alternative means.' Williams, supra, at 589 P.2d 326. Since this is so, this discretion cannot be tested by mandamus unless the doctrine ( Williams and Marsh, supra) and the statute (§ 1-30-102, W.S. 1977) must submit to overriding constitutional rights of strangers to the pretrial proceedings. As we have indicated above  the public at large has no such rights and, therefore, Harriscope, whose rights are no greater than any other member of the public ( Williams, supra), may not, in this case, reach the decision of Commissioner Feeney with a district court writ of mandamus directed against his closure order  an order which was formulated through the proper employment of his judicial discretion.