Opinion ID: 1427176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: burden of proof for closing a preliminary hearing

Text: It is true that there is a very important public interest in openness of public proceedings. To say there is a public interest, however, is not to say there is a constitutional right. This is especially true when that public interest collides with an equally important interest in the preservation of a fair trial and a relatively undamaged reputation for those who are accused but presumed innocent. Both historically and logically, the balance tips to the public and the media for access to a criminal trial, but to the accused for preservation of his rights and good name when access to a preliminary hearing is in issue. The majority opinion improperly places the burden of proof in imposing upon the accused the duty to establish a likelihood of prejudice. The preliminary hearing often takes place almost immediately after the defendant is charged. Unless good cause is shown, the hearing must be within ten days if the defendant is in custody and within thirty days if he is not. § 77-35-7(c). The California court observed in San Jose-Mercury News v. Municipal Court, 30 Cal.3d 498, 513, 638 P.2d 655, 664, 179 Cal. Rptr. 772, 781 (1982): Often, therefore, it is impossible for defendant to make a showing that in his case prejudice is likely and closure justified. The evidence required may not be available at an early stage, when community reaction and the media's attitude are not clear. Moreover, defendant may have little knowledge before the hearing of the prosecution's strategy and evidence. That additionally clouds his ability to prove the value to him of closure. (Footnote omitted.) The North Dakota court observed in Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen, N.D., 338 N.W.2d 72, 80 (1983): It may also become unbearably expensive for the accused to obtain, develop and introduce statistics regarding the media circulation and ratings and other such matters. I believe that the burden of proof, when the accused's right to a fair trial is in issue, should rest with the opponents of closure.