Opinion ID: 1427176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: exceptions to constitutional right of access

Text: As noted in the preceding discussion, all of the courts that have recognized a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings have also held that the right is subject to exceptions. For example, the court can restrict or deny access altogether where necessary to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial before an impartial jury. This section will discuss the criteria and procedures to be followed in making that determination.
This case concerns the legality of closing a criminal proceeding to the public, not the legality of a prior restraint on publication. Consequently, the stringent three-pronged test applied by the Supreme Court on the legality of a prior restraint, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976), and the four-pronged test applied by this Court on prior restraints limited to the duration of trial, KUTV, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 456, (Utah, 1984), are inapplicable here. The burden that must be sustained to obtain closure of criminal proceedings should be less stringent than the burden required to impose a prior restraint. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. at 393 n. 25, 99 S.Ct. at 2912 n. 25 (opinion of Court) and 398-401, 99 S.Ct. at 2914-2916 (Powell, J., concurring). Thus, the United States Supreme Court has phrased the criteria for closure (notwithstanding the First Amendment right of access) in terms that are comparatively easy to satisfy: The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values [elsewhere identified as the right of the accused to a fair trial, 104 S.Ct. at 823] and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. at 824. Interpreting the First Amendment and the comparable state constitutional guarantees, state courts have employed a variety of standards. Some courts have followed the A.B.A. standard, holding that in order to obtain closure in the face of the public right of access a defendant must show (1) that the public hearing presents a clear and present danger to his rights to a fair trial because there is a substantial likelihood that it would permit prejudicial information to reach potential jurors, and (2) that the prejudicial effect of such information on potential jurors cannot be avoided by any reasonable alternative means. Star Journal Publishing Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 591 P.2d 1028, 1030 (1979); Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, 117 N.H. 959, 380 A.2d 261, 263 (1977); American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press § 8-3.2 (2d ed. 1978). On this element, we prefer the criteria phrased by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Williams, supra , which does not adopt the clear and present danger test and simply makes reference to a realistic likelihood of prejudice as a result of adverse publicity traceable to the open hearing. 93 N.J. at 69, 459 A.2d at 656. Using its special judicial expertise and experience, 93 N.J. at 67, 459 A.2d at 655, the court will decide upon the need for closure based upon the following showings: (1) the evidence relevant to the nature and extent of the adverse publicity [that may be] generated by the open pretrial proceeding, including any inferences as to its potential for prejudice against a fair trial by an impartial jury, and (2) the evidence relating to the [availability, feasibility, and efficacy of alternative] means of selecting jurors and conducting the trial to assure the integrity and impartiality of the jury. 93 N.J. at 69, 459 A.2d at 656-57. (The words in brackets are from alternative formulations of the rule, 93 N.J. at 63-67, 459 A.2d at 653-55.) While easier to satisfy than the stringent multipart test pertaining to prior restraints, these criteria still impose a significant burden on a party who seeks to obtain an exception to the people's right of access to the preliminary hearing in a criminal case.
The burden of proof and persuasion on the closure of a preliminary hearing is on the proponent of closure (defendant or prosecution). State v. Williams, 93 N.J. at 64, 459 A.2d at 654. This rule follows from the public's constitutional right of access to the preliminary hearing. It imposes the burden on the party or parties with best access to evidence or information that can be used to sustain the burden. Contrary to the position advocated in the concurring opinion, it would be unfair and unworkable to impose the burden on the members of the public, such as the media, who rely on the constitutional right of access to the preliminary hearing. If the media had the burden of proving that an open hearing would not deny the defendant a fair trial, this would either doom their efforts to automatic failure (by requiring proof without access to evidence) or necessitate cumbersome and controversial prehearing discovery of evidence to the media, which could well render the issue of closure moot before it is heard.
For the same reasons articulated in KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, 668 P.2d at 524-25, a closure order must be preceded by notice and hearing. Representative members of the media must receive notice of the motion for closure and, along with other interested parties who seek to participate, must be afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings upon the motion to the maximum extent possible. In order to prevent disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial material before the issue of closure can be resolved, the court should follow the procedure outlined below. First, the hearing on the motion for closure should be open to the greatest extent possible. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Legget, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 399 N.E.2d 518, 524-25, 434 N.Y.S.2d 630, 637-38 (1979). If an open hearing can be conducted without disclosing the content of the allegedly prejudicial material, this should be done. State v. Burak, 37 Conn. Sup. 627, 431 A.2d 1246 (1981). Second, if disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial material is essential to the conduct of the hearing on the motion for closure, the court should first seek a voluntary agreement from the parties who wish to be present that they will not disclose the allegedly prejudicial information until it is disclosed at the trial or the trial has concluded. See, e.g., State ex rel. Smith v. District Court, Mont., 654 P.2d 982, 987-88 (1982); Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, supra . Absent such an agreement, the court may close the courtroom in order to conduct in camera whatever proceedings cannot be conducted without disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial information. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. at 73, 459 A.2d at 658-59; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Va., 281 S.E.2d 915, 924 (1981). Third, we stress that under either alternative the public can only be excluded from that portion of the closure hearing that the court finds to be necessary to protect the countervailing interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial. United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 854 (3d Cir.1978). Fourth, in the event that any portion of the proceeding is closed, the transcript of the proceeding should be made available to the public at the earliest time consistent with the preservation of the interests that required the hearing to be closed. State v. Burak, supra, 431 A.2d at 1248. Fifth, an order of closure must be accompanied by suitable written findings. This requirement, which is imposed by virtually all of the authorities cited in this opinion, allows an affected party to subject the order to immediate review and gives the reviewing court an authentic statement of the facts and legal principles upon which the closure was based. Under the foregoing procedure, the trial court will make an informed and fully explained decision on the necessity of closure, while considering and protecting the public's right of access to the fullest extent possible. The closure order petitioner challenged in this case was not accompanied by written findings. Indeed, no evidence was submitted in the hearing on the defendants' motion for closure. Without written findings, adequately supported by evidence, a closure order fails to qualify for the fair-trial exception and is invalid under the constitutional right of access defined in this opinion. The extraordinary writ sought by petitioner is granted, and respondent's November 23 order closing the preliminary hearing is set aside. No costs awarded. HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur. HOWE, J., concurs in the concurring and dissenting opinion of DANIELS, J. STEWART, J., does not participate herein; DANIELS, District Judge, sat. DANIELS, District Judge (Concurring and Dissenting). I concur with the majority in granting the extraordinary writ on the basis that the magistrate made no written findings. I dissent from that portion of the opinion which sets forth the procedure to be followed in closing a preliminary hearing, as I believe the standard adopted is incorrect for preliminary hearings. Initially, it is important to note that the right here asserted is not that of the accused. In this case, both the accused and the prosecutor asked to close the hearing. The accused was concerned about his right to a fair trial; the prosecutor expressed concern for the reputations of the victims. Whether the accused has an absolute right to demand an open preliminary hearing is a different question. The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was intended to guard against star chamber abuses that may result from secret proceedings. But the news media have no standing to assert this right. As the Supreme Court said in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979): In an adversary system of criminal justice, the public interest in the administration of justice is protected by the participants in the litigation. Thus, because of the great public interest in jury trials as the preferred mode of fact finding in criminal cases, a defendant cannot waive a jury trial without the consent of the prosecutor and judge. But if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial, and the prosecutor and the judge consent, it could hardly be seriously argued that a member of the public could demand a jury trial because of the societal interest in that mode of fact-finding. Similarly, while a defendant cannot convert his right to a speedy trial into a right to compel an indefinite postponement, a member of the general public surely has no right to prevent a continuance in order to vindicate the public interest in the efficient administration of justice. In short, our adversary system of criminal justice is premised upon the proposition that the public interest is fully protected by the participants in the litigation. 443 U.S. at 383-84, 99 S.Ct. at 2907-08 (citations and footnote omitted). Here Kearns-Tribune is asserting an independent right based not upon the Sixth Amendment, but solely upon the free speech and press guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 15 of the Utah Constitution. Secondly, it is important to note that this case does not involve a prior restraint to speak or to print or disseminate news; such a restraint could only be imposed under very stringent requirements. Rather, the right sought to be protected is the right to gather information. Certainly this is an important right, but it is subject to reasonable limitations. For example, in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965), the Supreme Court upheld the government's refusal to validate passports to Cuba even though the free flow of information was thereby restricted. In that case, the Court emphasized that [t]he right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information. 381 U.S. at 17, 85 S.Ct. at 1281. Certainly, freedom of the press would have little meaning if the right to gather information were unduly restricted. But gathering information is a right secondary to the right to speak and publish and is subject to restriction upon a less stringent standard than these more fundamental rights. The First Amendment secures the right of the public (including the media) to be present at a criminal trial. This presumption of openness can be overcome only when it is shown that the accused's right to a fair trial is in jeopardy. The question here presented is whether this same right and presumption of openness extends to a preliminary hearing. I am convinced that there are significant historical and practical differences between a trial and a preliminary hearing, and different standards should be applied.