Legal Document

494 U.S. 624 110 S.Ct. 1376 108 L.Ed.2d 572 Robert A. BUTTERWORTH, Jr., Attorney General of Florida, et al., Petitionersv.Michael SMITH. No. 88-1993. Argued Jan. 16, 1990. Decided March 21, Syllabus When respondent Smith, a reporter, testified before state grand jury about alleged improprieties committed by certain public officials, he was warned that if revealed his testimony in any manner, would be subject to criminal prosecution under Fla.Stat. § 905.27, which prohibits, inter alia, witness from ever disclosing given jury. After the terminated its investigation, Smith—who wanted write investigation's matter, including, testimony—filed suit Federal District Court, seeking declaration 905.27 an unconstitutional abridgment speech, and injunction preventing State prosecuting him. The court granted summary judgment State, but Court Appeals reversed. It held is extent it applies witnesses who speak their own after investigation terminated. Held: Section violates First Amendment insofar as prohibits jury's term has ended. Pp. 629-636. (a) To determine validity Florida's ban, State's interests preserving confidentiality proceedings must balanced against Smith's asserted rights. See Landmark Communications Inc. v. Virginia, 435 829, 838, 98 1535, 1541, 56 1. Seattle Times Co. Rhinehart, 467 20, 104 2199, 81 17 protective order prohibiting newspaper publishing information had obtained through discovery procedures did not offend Amendment—does govern since instant case deals with divulging witness' possession jury, may have participation those proceedings. officials constitutionally punish publication lawfully truthful matter importance absent need further interest highest order. 629-632. (b) secrecy either are served by, or insufficient warrant, ban. Once ends, there no keep targeted individual prevent escape, will been exonerated charged. Nor importuning jurors whose deliberations over. Similarly, concern some deterred presenting due fears retribution advanced free divulge testimony, part another remains enforceable. While subornation later testify at trial ban accused additional opportunity learn existence, effect marginal best outweigh involved. With present-day procedure generally requiring disclosure name available anyway. In addition, Florida substantial penalties for both perjury tampering, courts subpoena contempt powers bring recalcitrant stand. Although seeing persons up ridicule, alone cannot justify proscription exceptional circumstances. 632-634. (c) fact neither drafters Rules Criminal Procedure, nor similar rules majority States, found necessary impose obligation on protect probative weight assigned question them. 634-635. (d) ban's impact ability make statement dramatic. Here, testifying possessed matters admitted concern, believes longer communicate this information. potential abuse employment device silence know unlawful conduct irregularities apparent. 635-636. 866 F.2d 1318 (CA 11 1989), affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. SCALIA, J., filed concurring opinion, post, p. 636. George L. Waas, Tallahassee, Fla., petitioners. Gregg Darrow Thomas, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 A statute, limited exceptions, gave body. We hold law ended, United States Constitution. 2 Respondent reporter Charlotte Herald-News County, Florida. writing series articles, relevant County Attorney's Office Sheriff's Department. special prosecutor appointed investigate allegations called convened investigation. At time testified, prosecutor's staff reveal such revelation could result violating 905.27. provides pertinent part: " (1) juror . other person appearing shall disclose examined except when required purpose of: 3 "(a) Ascertaining whether consistent court; 4 "(b) Determining guilty perjury; 5 "(c) Furthering justice. 6 "(2) knowingly publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, person, cause permit published, disclosed, divulged, communicated manner whatsoever, content, gist, import thereof, disclosed proceeding." (1989).1 set out publish news story—and perhaps book—about include respondent's experiences dealing He sued Middle holding entitled permanent total proper functioning "this where severe infringement rights permissible." 678 F.Supp. 1552, 1561 (M.D.Fla.1988). 7 Eleventh Circuit Recognizing "question presented appeal narrow one," "the provisions section 'any person' nature they apply terminated." 1318, 1319, 1321 1989). acknowledging freedom speech afforded first amendment absolute," concluded competing were sufficiently compelling warrant imposition sanctions content testimony. Id., 1319-1320. reaching determination, relied principally our decision Communications, (1978), Rule Procedure governing imposes witnesses. F.2d, 1320. certiorari, 493 807, 46, 107 16 (1989), now affirm.2 8 Historically, important role administration English forerunner modern primarily prosecutorial investigative arm Crown designed enhance government's authority, 17th century developed equally function—to safeguard citizens overreaching unfounded accusations. S. Beale & W. Bryson, Grand Jury Law Practice 1:02, pp. 5-8 (1986). tradition surrounding evolved, least partially, means implementing latter function ensuring impartiality Douglas Oil California Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 211, 218-219, n. 9, 99 1667, 1672-1673, 60 156 (1979); Brown, Witness Secrecy, Am.J.Crim. 169, 170 (1983). Today, number different interests. 9 "We consistently recognized system depends upon See, e.g., Procter Gamble Co., [356 677, 78 983, 1077 (1958) ]. particular, we noted several distinct safeguarding First, preindictment made public, many prospective hesitant come forward voluntarily, knowing whom aware Moreover, appeared less likely fully frankly, open well inducements. There also risk indicted flee, try influence vote indictment. Finally, proceedings, assure ridicule." supra, S.Ct., 1672-1673 (footnote omitted). 10 same time, invocation "some talisman dissolves all constitutional protections." Dionisio, 410 1, 11, 93 764, 770, 35 67 (1973). Indeed, juries expected "operate within limits Amendment," Branzburg Hayes, 408 665, 708, 92 2646, 2670, 33 626 (1972). Wood Georgia, 370 375, 82 1364, 569 (1962). thus balance Landmark- Com munications, U.S., 1541 (balancing judicial review reporting proceedings); Branzburg, 690-691, 2661-2662 effective burden reporters' gathering sources). tension between government investigatory supra. There, Virginia statute crime regarding commission. publisher convicted article accurately pending inquiry commission identifying judge This conviction violated Constitution, concluding "that seeks lies near core Amendment, Commonwealth's actual encroachments press follow therefrom." 1541. assuming legitimate interests, observed "offered little more than assertion conjecture support claim without objectives statutory scheme seriously undermined." 841, 1542. over 40 unnecessary criminalize type issue preserve integrity Ibid. 12 argues (1984), rather Landmark, governs prohibition. Rhinehart Amendment. contrast, deal only right cases, "lawfully obtains significance," "state information, order." Smith Daily Mail Publishing 443 97, 103, 2667, 2671, 61 399 Star B.J.F., 491 524, 533, 109 2603, 2609, 105 (1989). 13 Here relating governmental misconduct—speech traditionally lying 1541; Wood, 388-389, 392, 1371-1372, 1374. punishment, relies acknowledged (1979). But do believe once discharged. Some these disclosure, sufficient sustain statute. 14 escape—that presumably exonerated, one hand, arrested otherwise informed charges him, other.3 is, think, prohibition; enforceable ruling Appeals. 15 prohibition extent: mind suborn existence chooses public. present day see, Fla.Rule Crim.Proc. 3.220(a), names sometime event. tampering witnesses, see §§ 837.02, 914.22 think here undoubtedly retains "persons 219, 1673. And does serve extent, although opposite applied himself target probe desired publicize way exonerating himself. even situations revealing decisions establish circumstances, reputational speech. 841-842, 1542-1543 ("Our prior cases firmly established injury official reputation reason repressing free") (quotation omitted); cf. supra (First precluded imposing damages rape victim's name); (State juvenile offender's Oklahoma 430 308, 97 1045, 51 355 (1977) enjoin name). take note respect 6(e)(2), secrecy, expressly individuals "matters occurring jury," "[n]o imposed accordance rule." Advisory Committee Notes 18 U.S.C.App., 726, exempt stating "[t]he seal seems hardship lead injustice permitted counsel associate." joined Of remaining 21 explicitly implicitly general obligation, simply remain silent issue. 3, 7.05, 20-21, nn. 18-21.4 practices conclusive constitutionality rule, Against just evaluated placed statement. dramatic: front will. giving relates "content, import" extends merely life into indefinite future. prohibition, 19 agree portion struck down overcome acquired own. Its therefore 20 Affirmed. concurring. 22 holds "insofar [it] ended." Ante, 626. I join Court's because interpret refer contained necessarily conveyed meaning clarification affirm "respondent's own." Ante page. 23 considerable doubt can prohibited, while sitting, making what knew entered room. Quite presented, however, knowledge acquires "on own" virtue being witness. discloses knew, told knew. quite good reasons why want information—which creation—to confidential expired. helps assure, thing, intimidated execution duties fear unjustified criticism respond. allow them respond, hand—by denying said claims said, pointing contradictory witnesses—would adverse effects, including subjection degree attention prominence might long run deter fearless performance service. say sufficient, decide today. entire text follows: "905.27. Testimony disclosed; exceptions. "(1) juror, attorney, assistant stenographer, interpreter, evidence received proceeding. orders pursuant subsection use case, attorney pending, him assistants, legal associates, employees, defendant associates employees. ordered civil parties attorneys However, used defense whatsoever. "(3) Nothing affect attorney-client relationship. client involving discussed client's presence proffered presence. "(4) Persons misdemeanor degree, punishable provided s. 775.083, fine exceeding $5,000, both. "(5) violation constitute court." complaint, sought "experience" Whatever encompass, clear "testimony" Since ruling, similarly limit arrest contemplated, lag issuance indictment arrest. As result, mechanism sealing indictments indictee's Fed.Rule 6(e)(4); 6.40, 232-233, 2, Other like prohibited officers returned made. 233, 4. instances infer asked accused's conduct. seem very speculative possibility, infra, conclude hypothesis postinvestigation Petitioners argue target's flight valid expires continued confronted situation and, accordingly, express prohibit Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 20.16 (Vernon 1977) (imposing Bryson list silent).

Classification Label: 2