Opinion ID: 1688754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a permanent injunction (gag order) enjoining the news media from any immediate coverage of all pretrial motions and hearings, and the denial of said motion made it possible for the release of information to the public, the effect of which ultimately denied the appellant the opportunity to select a fair and impartial jury.

Text: On January 13, 1984, appellant filed an application for permanent injunction seeking the following: A permanent injunction should be issued against the District Attorney and his staff, all local or state law enforcement personnel enjoining them from in any way communicating about this case to the press or any other individuals except among themselves to prepare for this case, and to further enjoin the new [sic] media from any media coverage of all pretrial motions and hearings held in this cause. After an evidentiary hearing, the lower court sustained the motion in part, enjoining the prosecutors and anyone else associated with the prosecution or defense from communicating with the news media about the case. The court declined to issue an injunction against the media coverage. A close perusal of the motion indicates that appellant was attempting to enjoin the news media from publishing anything about the case. The lower court apparently treated the motion as an attempt to keep media representatives from being present at any of the hearings. In denying that part of the motion, the lower court indicated it would consider any questions of admissibility in chambers, if requested. In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), it was indicated that, in certain situations, the trial judge has the authority to close pretrial hearings to the press at the request of the defendant. However, the Court did not go so far as to issue an injunction against the news media subsequent to the hearing at which the public was excluded. The press had full access to transcripts and records and were able to report events as they transpired. We are of the opinion that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in declining to issue an injunction against the news media.