Opinion ID: 199998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Procedure Employed Here.

Text: 43 In the Cianci case, the trial court deviated from the District of Rhode Island's blanket nonfiling policy. Thus, its methodology invites a separate analysis. 44 The constitutional right of public access is a qualified right that may be outweighed by competing interests in a given case. Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 511 n. 10, 104 S.Ct. 819; In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 52. Certainly, in a case in which public attention is quite high, a court deliberating about whether to restrict broadly public access to materials submitted in connection with criminal proceedings ordinarily ought to afford interested parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of impoundment. See, e.g., United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1361 n. 18 (3d Cir.1994). The court would normally be expected to identify and balance the competing interests involved, and weigh reasonable alternatives to sealing, making findings where necessary. In re State-Record Co., 917 F.2d at 127-29; In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d at 391. 45 Here, THE JOURNAL has not complained about a lack of notice, so we turn to the task of identifying and balancing the competing interests involved. The district court clearly registered its concern that the unrestrained disclosure of certain types of information about the Cianci case would create a substantial risk of prejudicing the parties' right to a fair trial. This disquietude impelled the court to implement, and then fine-tune, the non-dissemination order. An accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial plainly rises to the level of a compelling interest. See Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 508, 104 S.Ct. 819. When that right collides headon with the public's right of access to judicial records, the defendant's fair trial right takes precedence. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 53. 46 That does not mean, however, that the public's (and the media's) right to know can be frustrated by the mere invocation of a threat to the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. A court faced with an impending collision between these rights must, on a case-specific basis, construct a balance. Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510-11 & n. 10, 104 S.Ct. 819. That weighing must proceed on the assumption that restrictions on access to presumptively public judicial documents should be imposed only if a substantial likelihood exists that the accused's right to a fair trial will otherwise be prejudiced. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735. We caution that this inquiry requires specific findings; the First Amendment right of public access is too precious to be foreclosed by conclusory assertions or unsupported speculation. United States v. Kirk ( In re Memphis Publ'g Co. ), 887 F.2d 646, 648-49 (6th Cir.1989); In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d at 392-93 & n. 9; United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1984). 47 Political corruption cases tend to attract widespread media attention, and the Cianci case is a paradigmatic example. Here, moreover, the district court cited book and verse, cataloguing specific incidents that fueled its concerns that the defendants' ability to receive a fair trial was in danger of being substantively compromised by unrestrained disclosures. The court alluded specifically to leaks of information in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and misbehavior by the lead prosecutor. In view of the notoriety of the case and the incidents recounted by the district court, we are convinced that the court's perception of a threat to the defendants' fair trial rights was objectively reasonable. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 392-93, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (concluding that the trial court properly appraised legitimate concerns that open proceeding posed reasonable probability of prejudice to defendants' fair trial rights). 48 Having found that the defendants' fair trial rights represent a compelling interest, we next must decide whether the non-dissemination order is drawn as narrowly as practicable. The threshold question is whether a trial court, in a particular case, can adopt a procedure that reverses the presumption of public access and automatically seals all subsequent filings until the judge determines that a specific document poses no undue risk to the defendant's fair trial rights. 49 THE JOURNAL argues that the decision in Associated Press v. United States Dist. Ct., 705 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir.1983), requires that this question be answered in the negative. In that case, the district court, responding to extensive press coverage of a high-profile criminal matter, issued a sua sponte order directing the parties to submit all future filings under seal in order to permit the court to initially review them and to make a determination with regard to disclosure. Id. at 1144. The trial court subsequently imposed a 48-hour time limit within which it would rule upon the need for a given filing to remain sealed. Id. at 1145. The Ninth Circuit nonetheless struck down the procedure and directed the district court to vacate its order. Id. at 1147. 50 In our view, Associated Press is a horse of a different hue. There, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court had failed to make specific findings showing that access to pretrial documents will create a substantial probability of irreparable damage to defendants' fair trial rights. Id. at 1146. The presence of such findings here readily distinguishes this case. 51 We find more helpful the opinion in United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir.1997). There, the court acknowledged that a high-profile criminal case may impose[ ] unique demands on the trial court, and require[ ] the court to establish procedures for dealing effectively, efficiently and fairly with recurring issues such as whether documents should be placed under seal or redacted. Id. at 813. This is exactly what transpired here. In response to a cognizable threat to the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, the district court adopted a practical procedure that enabled it effectively and efficiently to safeguard those rights. Nothing in the case law prevents a court from establishing this sort of prophylaxis. And given the circumstances of this case, the district court's implementation of a general procedure to seal all memoranda temporarily appears narrowly tailored. 52 Turning our attention to the specifics of the non-dissemination order, we hold that the district court's insistence on reviewing each memorandum before deciding whether it should remain under seal did not constitute reversible error. Although we question the court's apparent reluctance to rely on counsel to separate wheat from chaff in accordance with the non-dissemination order — experience teaches that most lawyers will cooperate with the court and, in all events, will be loath to defy a court order — nothing precludes the district court from assuming that burden. 53 This does not mean that we regard the non-dissemination order as a textbook model. We have four specific concerns. First, where, as here, a court undertakes to screen documents before they are placed in the case file, the procedure should incorporate a specific timetable obligating the court to perform its self-imposed screening responsibilities promptly and to render a timely decision as to whether a particular document is fit for public disclosure. Second, and relatedly, the court below decided to refrain from reviewing each individual memorandum to decide whether it could be made available to the public until after the time had expired for the submission of any possible reply memorandum. This unnecessarily prolongs the process. Each individual memorandum either contains restricted information (in which case it is subject to redaction or sealing) or it does not (in which case it does not pose a threat to the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights). Third, the order contains no provision as to whether the court intends to unseal retained memoranda at some point after the trial has ended (and if so, when). 54 Finally, we think that the district court's refusal to consider redaction on a document-by-document basis is insupportable. Courts have an obligation to consider all reasonable alternatives to foreclosing the constitutional right of access. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 56. Redaction constitutes a time-tested means of minimizing any intrusion on that right. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir.1995) (stating that it is proper for a district court, after weighing competing interests, to edit and redact a judicial document in order to allow access to appropriate portions of the document); see also United States v. Biaggi ( In re N.Y. Times ), 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987) (rejecting wholesale sealing of papers partly because limited redaction [might] be appropriate). 55 Here, moreover, our ability to assess whether the district court was justified in refusing to redact the 11 documents that remain sealed is hampered by a lack of specific findings. See In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 56 (requiring a trial court that rejects alternatives to sealing to make specific findings to facilitate appellate review). The court did say, generally, that in those rare cases where counsel find it necessary to refer to grand jury matters or other matters not properly disclosable, those references are almost invariably dispersed throughout the memoranda and inextricably intertwined with the references to applicable legal authority. D. Ct. Op. at 13. But the First Amendment requires consideration of the feasibility of redaction on a document-by-document basis, and the court's blanket characterization falls well short of this benchmark. 56 Having pointed out these defects in the non-dissemination order, we leave the matter of correction to the district court. Consistent with the core purpose of advisory mandamus, the principal value of our rulings is in terms of future cases. In respect to the Cianci case itself, the court is at the end of a lengthy trial; once the dust has settled, we are confident that the district court will set a reasonable timetable for determining whether previously submitted memoranda are to be placed on file in the clerk's office (with or without redaction); and, as to any memorandum withheld from filing, will enter specific findings as to the need for that restriction and the impracticality of redaction as an alternative to sealing. Within a reasonable time after the Cianci case and all related proceedings have ended — there is a severed defendant yet to be tried — we anticipate that the district court will consider the release of all documents and other materials then remaining under seal. Should the district court fail to act in a timely manner to effectuate the principles endorsed in this opinion—a contingency that we doubt will occur—THE JOURNAL is free to petition for ancillary relief.