Opinion ID: 1250522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: prior restraint on publication

Text: Media claim that the trial judge orally prohibited any publication of lawfully obtained information, to-wit: P.R.'s name. As such, Media claim that this action would be a prior restraint which violates the First Amendment. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the trial judge has specifically restrained the publication of any lawfully obtained material. (In fact, counsel for Media admitted at oral argument before this court that their clients voluntarily withheld publishing/broadcasting P.R.'s name because of ethical considerations.) Apparently the trial judge had reminded Media of the provisions of SDCL 26-8-34, which says: The name, picture, place of residence, or identity of any child, parent, guardian, other custodian, or any person appearing as a witness in proceedings under this chapter shall not be published or broadcast in any news media, nor given any other publicity, unless for good cause it is specifically permitted by order of the court. In any event, our holding on the access issue in this case moots this issue, [4] and we express no opinion on the claimed invalidity of SDCL 26-8-34. Normally, we would remand this case to the trial judge to reconsider the motion in light of this opinion. Because of the unique facts and circumstances present here, we have concluded to grant the writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to allow Media to attend further hearings. Nothing in this decision or the resultant writ of mandamus is intended to otherwise limit the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, from excluding Media from those portions of such hearings which would prejudice the juvenile's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, so long as the appropriate balancing is made and supported findings are entered consistent with this opinion. The writ will be issued accordingly.