Opinion ID: 1810757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: first and sixth amendment considerations

Text: While we have concluded that the due process clause does not prohibit electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings per se, by the same token we reject the argument of the petitioner that the first and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution mandate entry of the electronic media into judicial proceedings. We are satisfied that this issue was laid to rest not only in the Estes [45] decision, but more recently in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), where with particular reference to the sixth amendment, it was stated: Respondents contend that release of the tapes is required by the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. They acknowledge that the trial at which these tapes were played was one of the most publicized in history, but argue that public understanding of it remains incomplete in the absence of the ability to listen to the tapes and form judgments as to their meaning based on inflection and emphasis. In the first place, this argument proves too much. The same could be said of the testimony of a live witness, yet there is no constitutional right to have such testimony recorded and broadcast. Estes v. Texas, supra [381 U.S.], at 539-542, 85 S.Ct. [1628] at 1631-32. Second, while the guarantee of a public trial, in the words of Mr. Justice Black, is a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution, In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), it confers no special benefit on the press. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S., at 583, 85 S.Ct., at 1653 (Warren, C.J., concurring); id., at 588-589 (Harlan, J., concurring). Nor does the Sixth Amendment require that the trial  or any part of it  be broadcast live or on tape to the public. The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity of members of the public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed. Id., at 588-589, 85 S.Ct. at 1662-1663 (Harlan, J., concurring). That opportunity abundantly existed here. 435 U.S. at 610, 98 S.Ct. at 1318 (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, our decision in this case is predicated upon the supervisory authority which reposes in this Court pursuant to article V of the Florida Constitution and not upon any constitutional imperative.