Court Opinion

ID: 9648716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:33:19.344708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:04.874569
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Only two years ago this Court, presented with precisely the same question now before us, denied by a unanimous vote a petition for extraordinary review challenging those provisions of our Rules of Criminal Procedure which allow the trial court to close pretrial suppression of evidence hearings on a showing of a serious threat to the fair trial rights of an accused. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 478 Pa. 484, 387 A.2d 425 (1978). On appeal the United States Supreme Court unanimously dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 443 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 3104, 61 L.Ed.2d 877 (1979), a disposition on the merits, see Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975). On the same day, the United States Supreme Court upheld the closure of a pretrial suppression of evidence hearing against the challenge that the sixth and fourteenth amendments insure the public and the media a right of attendance. Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979).
Whatever then may be said about the public interests involved in the resolution of the merits of this issue, surely any “need for clear and decisive judicial direction,” Opinion *459of Mr. Justice Nix, ante at 318, is not served by the type of ad hoc determination indulged in by the Court today. This Court has occasionally been required to modify its views in light of contrary pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court, see e. g., Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 100 S.Ct. 402, 62 L.Ed.2d 355 (1979) rev’g 483 Pa. 90, 394 A.2d 553 (1978). But I cannot discover any prior instance in which this Court has changed its views because the United States Supreme Court has declared them correct. It must regrettably be concluded that today’s determination is based on something less than neutral principles of law or a need for “clear and decisive judicial direction,” and is instead based on perhaps little more than the pursuit of media approval. Today’s decision represents a raw exercise of judicial power which must necessarily unsettle all those who have trusted in the process of principled judicial decision-making.
The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in this case is plainly inappropriate. This is so not only because this Court has only recently unanimously rejected the appropriateness of such an intrusion. Today’s exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is particularly irresponsible given that those voting to exercise that jurisdiction cannot agree on what, if any, error the trial court in this case has committed.
Mr. Justice Nix votes to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction only to offer his advice that the trial court should consider, as an alternative to closure, the novel procedure of selecting and sequestering a jury before the suppression hearing and then permitting the hearing to be open to the media. But Mr. Justice Nix does not suggest that our guidelines established in Jerome permitting closure on a showing of a serious threat to the fair trial rights of an accused are no longer controlling. Nor does he suggest that the trial court, on reconsideration, may not reinstate its order of closure. Remarkably, then, Mr. Justice Nix votes to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction merely to ask the trial court to consider a proposal which the record establishes the trial court has already considered and properly rejected.
*460Mr. Justice Kauffman also votes to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction so that he may take the opportunity to express his views on the question of closing pretrial suppression hearings. Unlike Mr. Justice Nix, however, Mr. Justice Kauffman would expressly limit the permissibility of an order of closure to cases of strict and inescapable necessity. This view, accepted by no other member of this Court, is plainly contrary to this Court’s unanimous decision in Jerome. Although Mr. Justice Kauffman asserts that he has discovered this principle from a plain reading of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it is obvious that this view represents little more than a personal preference for media prerogatives and is not based on any adequate consideration of the constitutionally guaranteed fair trial rights of citizens involved in our criminal justice system. It must be emphasized, however, that Mr. Justice Kauffman, like Mr. Justice Nix, does not deny the possibility that closure of the suppression hearing may have been and may still be the appropriate procedure in this case.
Finally, Mr. Justice Larsen and Mr. Justice Flaherty also vote to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction so that they may also now express their views on the question of closure. In contrast with Mr. Justice Nix and Mr. Justice Kauffman, however, Mr. Justice Larsen and Mr. Justice Flaherty would hold, as an absolute rule, that all criminal proceedings should be open to the public and the media. These two Justices, in refusing to acknowledge the possibility of any limiting considerations, thus adopt a position not seriously advocated by any prior caselaw or scholarship and, indeed, a position which the media itself has never purported to advance. This position, if accepted, would plainly deny to those citizens involved in cases of widespread publicity rights expressly-guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions.
Thus, in complete disregard of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and the public interest in the prompt resolution of criminal proceedings, a majority of this Court has interrupted and delayed the present criminal case in order to do little more than create a forum for the expression of the *461separate and inconsistent views of its members. This unnecessary tampering with our criminal justice system is a clear misuse of the judicial power. I dissent and would deny this petition for extraordinary review.
THE NARROW ISSUE PRESENTED HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT
It is important to make clear what issues are not involved in this case. Not presented here is any question concerning the propriety of closing from the public or the media the trial of any criminal case.1 The order which we are asked to review authorizes only the closure of a pretrial suppression proceeding.2
Not presented here is any question concerning the permissibility of an order preventing the media from publishing any material or information in their possession or from writing about whatever they please. The order authorizing closure of the pretrial suppression proceeding is not a prior restraint on the media. Gannett, supra at 393 n. 25, 99 S.Ct. at 2912; id. at 398-99, 99 S.Ct. at 2915 (Powell, J., concurring); id. at 411-412, 99 S.Ct. at 2922 (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Jerome, supra, 478 Pa. at 499 — 500, 387 A.2d at 432 — 33; compare Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976).
*462Also not presented here is the permissibility of permanently withdrawing from the public view or from the media any part of any judicial proceeding. It is clear that our criminal procedural rules require, in the event that a pretrial suppression hearing is closed, that a transcript of the hearing be made and that the transcript be made available when the dangers of public disclosure have abated. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(g).
Finally, not presented here is any objection by the defendant to closure of the hearing. Our rules clearly permit closure only on the defendant’s own motion.3 In the present case the defendant’s motion for closure was joined by the Commonwealth, which has filed a brief in this Court in support of the motion.
The narrow substantive question presented by this case is the propriety, on motion of the defendant and the prosecution, of temporarily excluding the press from a pretrial suppression proceeding in a criminal case when the trial judge is satisfied that public disclosure of the information to be adduced at the hearing will likely prejudice the defendant’s rights at his subsequent public jury trial. Crucially, however, the issue today is even narrower, for we are required to consider the need for addressing the question presented on a petition for extraordinary review.
This is precisely the issue we decided in Jerome, where this Court unanimously dismissed such a petition because *463there was no showing that any clear rights of the media petitioners in that case had been violated. Today’s petitioners fail to demonstrate any basis on which to distinguish this case from Jerome, and they do not present any reason why the rights they claim cannot be adequately protected by the ordinary means of appellate review. Accordingly I can see absolutely no reason why this petition should not be similarly dismissed. Because, however, of the unfortunate failure of a majority of my Brethern to be guided by recent binding decisional law, it is apparently necessary to restate and explain controlling principles.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES THAT THE JURY NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL
Both the federal Constitution and our state Constitution guarantee to the criminally accused a fair trial by an impartial jury. U.S.Const., Amends. VI & XIV; Pa.Const, art. I, § 9. And minimum standards of due process require that the “impartial jury” will base its verdict only on evidence properly received in open court, and not from outside sources. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961); Commonwealth v. Bruno, 466 Pa. 245, 352 A.2d 40 (1976); Commonwealth v. Pierce, 451 Pa. 190, 303 A.2d 209, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 164, 28 L.Ed.2d 124 (1973); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 449 Pa. 50, 295 A.2d 303 (1972), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3078, 41 L.Ed.2d 670 (1974). “Legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.” Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252, 271, 62 S.Ct. 190, 197, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941). For as Justice Holmes observed many years ago:
“The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.”
*464Patterson v. State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General, 205 U.S. 454, 462, 27 S.Ct. 556, 558, 51 L.Ed. 879 (1907).
It is now well-established that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is not admissible at the defendant’s trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). To protect this basic right the Constitution requires that the trial judge, outside the hearing of the jury, must determine if challenged evidence is the product of constitutionally impermissible government conduct and so must be excluded. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). Only if the judge is satisfied that the evidence is admissible may the jury then hear it.4
In response to this constitutional obligation to allow a defendant the opportunity, outside the hearing of the jury, to test the admissibility of the evidence obtained by the Commonwealth, our Rules of Criminal Procedure provide the defendant a pretrial hearing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323. Generally these hearings are open to the public. Yet in the ordinary case testimony taken at such a suppression hearing will receive little if any public attention, and those jurors eventually sworn to judge a defendant’s case will neither have heard any of the evidence before nor be aware if any evidence has been excluded.
This is not so, however, in cases of high publicity. In such cases, should there be a suppression hearing, any evidence or testimony produced at the hearing will likely reach the general public, including potential jurors. Even in the event that all the challenged evidence is found admissible there is *465always the problem that potential jurors will prematurely become aware of incriminating evidence without the due process safeguards afforded by trial procedures or by cross-examination. In the event, however, that any evidence is suppressed, publicity of the hearing will in all probability inform potential jurors of evidence which, by definition, the courts have found that jurors should not hear. Additionally, should the defendant testify at his suppression hearing it is likely that media coverage will report this testimony. Yet it is established that, on the defendant’s objection, the Constitution forbids the use of this testimony at trial. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).
In cases receiving substantial media attention the possibility that a significant portion of the jury pool will become aware of inadmissible evidence is not speculative or imaginary. Indeed, courts have not infrequently been required to reverse convictions when it has appeared that jurors have been exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity. E. g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, supra; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); Irvin v. Dowd, supra; Commonwealth v. Frazier, 471 Pa. 121, 369 A.2d 1224 (1977); Commonwealth v. Pierce, supra. Thus recognizing in these special cases the potential for unfairness to citizens involved in the criminal process and the potential for disruption of the orderly administration of our criminal justice system, our Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a trial judge, on motion of the defendant, to exclude the media from a pretrial suppression hearing. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(f).5
*466JEROME PROPERLY PERMITS ORDERS CLOSING PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARINGS BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SERIOUS THREAT TO A FAIR TRIAL
In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome this Court considered challenges to the permissibility of trial court orders under this section of our Rules. There this Court was asked to assume extraordinary jurisdiction to review orders by three trial judges closing three pre-trial suppression hearings. Each case involved a serious crime and was an event of high-publicity. One of these three cases, Commonwealth v. Boyle, was the nationally reported murder trial of former United Mine Workers President W. A. “Tony” Boyle.
Jerome began by carefully reviewing the purposes served by our Rules of Criminal Procedure. This review started with the recognition that the Rules “are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding,” and “to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustified expense and delay.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 2. Our unanimous Court clearly explained the genuine public advantage to be served by the use, in an appropriate case, of our Rules concerning closure:
“These Rules are designed to promote the clear public interest in having persons accused of crime tried fairly, expeditiously, economically, and only once. If prejudicial publicity occurs, the trial court may have to continue the case, change venue, resort to extensive voir dire to assure that the attitudes of jurors have not been influenced by disclosure, or use the costly and inconvenient device of jury sequestration. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). If the trial court takes inadequate remedial measures, an appellate court would be compelled to reverse a conviction, starting the trial process anew.
*467Prejudicial publicity from pre-trial suppression hearings injures the Commonwealth as well as the accused. Prejudicial disclosures may taint a trial or require a trial court to delay trial until publicity subsides. Neither delayed trials nor retrials present as favorable opportunities for establishing truth as timely first trials. By precluding prejudicial disclosures arising from pre-trial suppression hearings, the Rules promote the speedy and effective enforcement of the criminal laws, ensure swift convictions deterring crime, see A. von Hirsch, Doing Justice (1976), and avoid unnecessary expenditures of public funds and judicial resources.”
478 Pa. at 498, 507, 387 A.2d at 432, 436-37 (footnote omitted); see Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2186, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (“there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from . the interests of the accused.”).
Jerome next fully considered claims by the media that a right of access to pretrial proceedings is guaranteed by the first and sixth amendments as applied to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. We acknowledged the important interest in public trials and in maintaining the judicial process open to public view. Without doubt open judicial proceedings serve to advance the quality of justice by insuring that all participants act conscientiously and by enhancing the possibility that those with information or evidence will be alerted or will be willing to come forward. And, indeed, the mere possibility of public scrutiny certainly promotes public confidence that the process of criminal justice is operating as it should. 478 Pa. at 501, 513, 387 A.2d at 434, 439; see Gannett, supra at 382-83, 99 S.Ct. at 2907. In the case of pretrial suppression hearings, however, Jerome refused to find an absolute right of access constitutionally guaranteed. Rather this Court unanimously concluded that in appropriate cases the need to protect an accused’s right to a fair trial and the goal of promoting the public interest in an orderly criminal process permitted the closure of a pretrial suppression hearing. We *468in no way suggested that such hearings should be casually or frequently closed. Nor did this Court permit closure on nothing more than the motion of the defendant. Jerome was firm that “any limitation on access should be carefully drawn.”
“First, the right of access to court proceedings should not be limited for any reason less than the compelling state obligation to protect constitutional rights of criminal defendants and the public interest in the fair, orderly, prompt, and final disposition of criminal proceedings. Second, access should not be limited unless the threat posed to the protected interest is serious. Third, rules or orders limiting access should effectively prevent the harms at which they are aimed. Finally, the rules or orders should limit no more than is necessary to accomplish the end sought.”
478 Pa. at 503-504, 387 A.2d at 434-35 (footnotes omitted).
Based on these standards this Court concluded that the media petitioners in Jerome had not demonstrated such an invasion of their rights as required extraordinary relief and this Court denied their petitions. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court the case was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 443 U.S 913, 99 S.Ct. 3104, 61 L.Ed.2d 877 (1979), see Hicks v. Miranda, supra.
This was the very same day the Supreme Court decided Gannett, in which the Court rejected the claim that the “public trial” clause of the sixth amendment guarantees the public or the media any right to attend pretrial suppression hearings. In addition, the Court, although reserving consideration of any right of access under the first amendment, indicated that if any such right exists, it had been satisfied by the trial court, which had entertained media arguments in favor of access before deciding to close the suppression hearing in that case.6 Importantly, in upholding the action *469of the trial court, the Supreme Court expressly rejected any rule which would limit the availability of closure orders to cases of “strict and inescapable necessity.” 443 U.S. at 378, 99 S.Ct. at 2904.
In the circumstances of the present case, it is unnecessary to predict exactly what place the first amendment will eventually find. Rather it is sufficient to note that Gannett forecloses any claim that the first amendment requires a showing of strict necessity in order to authorize an order of closure. I am convinced that Jerome’s approval of closure orders based on a showing of a “serious threat” to fair trial rights gives adequate protection to both sixth and first amendment values and that the guidelines established in Jerome will survive any subsequent federal constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, I do not understand any member of this Court to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, the Pennsylvania Constitution does not preclude the possibility of closure in the circumstances described in Jerome. As Mr. Justice Nix acknowledges, nothing in our prior cases suggests that either art. I, § 9 or art. I, § 11 of our state Constitution can be read as guaranteeing the media a right to attend pretrial suppression hearings in every case. And it must be emphasized that only three Justices purport to find any basis in our state Constitution for requiring that closure orders must be limited more strictly than this Court suggested in Jerome.
These three Justices focus on art. I, § 11, which provides:
“All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct.”
*470Two of these three Justices, Mr. Justice Larsen and Mr. Justice Flaherty, would read this provision as an absolute prohibition against closed pretrial suppression proceedings. Yet this Court has already clearly rejected such an absolute principle. For in Commonwealth v. Trinkle, 279 Pa. 564, 124 A. 191 (1924), a case relied on by Mr. Justice Nix, this Court stated:
“Public trials, with public records, were introduced, and our Constitution perpetuates this practice; but it must not be carried to an illogical and, requiring unreasonable or impossible things . . . .”
Id., 279 Pa. at 568, 124 A. at 192.
Indeed, all three Justices who rely on art. I, § 11 simply fail to locate any single prior decision of this Court or any contemporary historical materials which support their views.7 Rather, each of these Justices suggests that his view is compelled by a plain reading of the constitutional text. Yet these assertions about the plain meaning of this provision are obviously belied by the fact that these three Justices cannot themselves agree on what the constitutional language means.
Notwithstanding the absolutist view of Mr. Justice Larsen or Mr. Justice Flaherty, it must be obvious that the provisions of our Constitution must be read together. Accordingly the blanket refusal of these two Justices to consider those provisions of our Constitution which guarantee criminal defendants the right to a fair trial before an impartial jury, art. I, §§ 6, 9, is entirely inappropriate. Their approach evidences remarkable disregard for the realities of our criminal justice system and for established principles of fairness and due process.
Although Mr. Justice Kauffman acknowledges the constitutional requirements of a fair trial, I am convinced that his test of strict and inescapable necessity, if followed, would in *471fact never permit the closure of a suppression hearing. See Remarks of Prof. Kamisar at the First Annual Supreme Court Review and Constitutional Law Symposium, reprinted in The Supreme Court 1978-1979 at 217 (1979). Thus, Mr. Justice Kauffman’s approach would also fail to protect either fair trial rights or to account for the public interest in fair and prompt criminal proceedings.8 I am in agreement with Mr. Justice Powell’s thoughtful opposition to a rule allowing closure only on a showing of strict and inescapable necessity:
“It is difficult to imagine a case where closure could be ordered appropriately under this standard. A rule of such apparent inflexibility could prejudice defendants’ rights and disserve society’s interest in the fair and prompt disposition of criminal trials. As a result of pretrial publicity, defendants could be convicted after less than the meticulously fair trial that the Constitution demands. There also could be an increase in reversal of convictions on appeals. In either event, it seems to me that the approach suggested . . . would not adequately safeguard the defendant’s right to a fair trial, a right of equal constitutional significance to the right of access. The better course would be a more flexible accommodation . —an accommodation under which neither defendant’s rights nor the rights of members of the press and public should be made subordinate.”
Gannett, supra at 399, 99 S.Ct. at 2915-16 (concurring opinion). There is simply no valid reason under either federal or state constitutional law for now reconsidering the guidelines recently articulated in Jerome.
EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION IS PLAINLY INAPPROPRIATE
The present case is a prosecution for sex offenses brought against a state legislator. There is no doubt that it has *472attracted the special interest and curiosity of the media and the public. In the trial court the defendant, pursuant to our Rules of Criminal Procedure, moved to suppress certain evidence and to have the suppression hearing closed. At the time of this motion representatives of the media were apparently present, were permitted by the trial court to intervene and were given an opportunity to present oral argument and to file briefs in opposition to the motion for closure. Although petitioners have not as yet provided this Court with a transcript of these proceedings, we do note that petitioners’ trial court briefs contain discussion and citation of Jerome as well as Gannett. And the record does clearly indicate that the trial judge afforded petitioners a full hearing with a complete opportunity to argue their position. Petitioner Press presented to the trial court its proposal that a jury be selected, sworn and sequestered before a suppression hearing and that the hearing then be held in public. The trial judge rejected this suggestion and granted the defendant’s motion, supported by the Commonwealth, for closure. Given these proceedings, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the trial court did not give due consideration to all constitutional values and that the trial court’s ruling was not entirely consistent with the guidelines established in Jerome, and of course Gannett.9
*473Since the Jerome case itself did not require our assumption of extraordinary jurisdiction because, as the unanimous Court held, no clear rights were violated, surely in this case, where the trial judge has exercised his discretion under the guidelines announced in Jerome, extraordinary jurisdiction is inappropriate.
This Court’s view in Jerome of the acceptability of pretrial closure orders explicitly rested on our unanimous judgment that other procedural precautions would not always serve to insure the citizen accused a fair trial or serve to protect the public interest in fair, orderly proceedings. Voir dire, continuance, cautionary instructions, sequestration and change of venue were all considered and difficulties with each of them described.10 Jerome of course did not reject the possi*474bility that in a given criminal case one or a combination of these procedures might serve to provide a fair trial. But Jerome clearly recognized that each of these procedures has its flaws and that in the event of a case of high publicity closure of the pretrial hearing may obviate the need for these measures. Crucially, Jerome did not require that closure be used only upon a showing that it was the only possible procedural device capable of providing a defendant a fair trial. Jerome did not establish any test of strict necessity. Rather, Jerome permitted the trial court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to grant a motion for closure on a showing that such an order would serve to avert a serious threat to a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
By their very nature, decisions concerning the conduct of pretrial and trial proceedings will, in the individual case, be left to the considered judgment of the trial court. It is the trial court which must shoulder the basic affirmative responsibility to provide a fair trial. Sheppard v. Maxwell, supra. And in large measure appellate courts must, here as in many other areas, rely upon the trial court to perform that responsibility properly. Commonwealth v. Stewart, supra; Commonwealth v. Bruno, supra; see Commonwealth v. Knight, 469 Pa. 57, 364 A.2d 902 (1976) (decision to exclude spectators from courtroom during testimony of young witness within discretion of trial court). The trial judge is clearly in a superior position to consider the atmosphere surrounding a trial and in a superior position to consider the practicality of adopting any given procedure.
In substantial part it was an appreciation of these considerations which led this Court to reject the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in Jerome. Now, having identified the important constitutional values which must be weighed when a defendant moves to have a suppression hearing closed, we must, as an initial matter, trust to the wisdom of the trial judge to consider those values and to *475authorize closure only upon an appropriate showing. This point is made clearly by Mr. Justice Powell:
“The task of determining the application of these limitations in each individual trial necessarily falls almost exclusively upon the trial court asked to exclude members of the press and public from the courtroom. For it would be entirely impractical to require criminal proceedings to cease while appellate courts were afforded an opportunity to review a trial court’s decision to close proceedings.”
Gannett, supra, 398, 99 S.Ct. at 2915 (concurring opinion).
In this case, where there is absolutely no affirmative showing that the trial court has acted erroneously in ordering closure, the disruptive exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is glaringly inappropriate. Here the trial of the underlying criminal case has been significantly delayed awaiting these attempts at extraordinary review. Such delays, at the behest of parties other than the defendant or the Commonwealth, ignore the defendant’s right to a speedy trial, U.S. Const, amend. VI (speedy trial); Pa.Const. art. I, § 9 (same); Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 (accused must be brought to trial within 180 days of initiation of criminal proceedings), and ignore the independent public interest in swift and fair proceedings, Barker v. Wingo, supra. No interest is served by today’s unwise attempt at supervision.
THE PROPOSED SEQUESTRATION SCHEME IMPOSES ENORMOUS COSTS, PLAINLY FRUSTRATES THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND MANIFESTLY THREATENS THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Finally, but importantly, the sequestration scheme suggested by Mr. Justice Nix will impose upon the trial court, the defendant, the prosecution and the Commonwealth a completely impractical, unfair and burdensome procedure. The proposal of selecting and swearing a jury prior to the suppression hearing and of sequestering that jury from the time of the hearing until the end of the trial would place pressures and difficulties upon all involved that make such a scheme a clearly unworkable and impermissible alternative.
*476Mr. Justice Nix asserts, that, at least in the present case, the suppression hearing will occur just prior to trial and thus there will be little delay between sequestration and the beginning of trial. In fact the pretrial scheduling of this case has already produced extended and unforeseen delay. Nothing in the record suggests what further turns the trial of this case may take. Indeed it is unlikely that this Court is ever in a position to judge with any certainty on exactly what schedule any case will proceed.
Of course under this scheme even the shortest delay between the suppression hearing and the trial will not obviate the need to maintain sequestration of the jury throughout the trial, at least in the likely event that the public suppression hearing produces testimony or evidence which will be inadmissible at trial. Clearly the decision to sequester a jury prior to the suppression hearing carries with it the commitment to continue sequestration until a verdict is reached. Thus, this scheme will require sequestration of a jury during the full course of the trial in cases where a closure order may obviate the need for any sequestration whatsoever. Even in the event that trial sequestration may be necessary, under today’s proposal any delay between the suppression hearing and the trial will obviously increase the time period during which the jury must be sequestered. As a practical matter this sequestration procedure will result in enormous cost to the counties of this Commonwealth, and cause severe problems of administration and fairness.
First, the Commonwealth must pay, house and feed all twelve jurors and two alternates throughout the entire time of their sequestration. Court administrators in this Commonwealth uniformly report that the average cost for food and lodging alone for only one day is, at a minimum, $600.00. These costs, however, are just the beginning. Sequestration also demands court personnel to supervise and attend to the jurors and security personnel to insure against impermissible contact with the outside community. These groups are necessarily paid at increased rates of compensation for this *477special around the clock service. There is also the cost of special transportation to and from the court each day. And there are always a variety of necessary miscellaneous costs for the safety, entertainment and comfort of the sequestered jurors. Finally, in cases of extended sequestration, arrangements must be made for contact visits, for the supervised receipt of mail and for the medical needs or other personal requirements of the jurors. Court administrators report that the average cost of a sequestered jury for a single day is now at least $1500.00 to $1800.00. See State v. Allen, 73 N.J. 132, 141, 373 A.2d 377, 381 (1977) (costs of sequestration “enormous”).
The financial costs of this procedure are indeed substantial. But economic objections are overshadowed by the extreme unfairness this procedure poses for the defendant.
Having sequestered a jury at such heavy public expense, pressure will inevitably fall upon the trial judge to hurry his disposition of the suppression claims, as well as all other pretrial matters. At a minimum, judicial control of pretrial proceedings will be compromised and matters normally requiring last minute attention or rearrangement quite possibly will be brushed aside.
Clearly, under such self-imposed pressure, any suppression claims will be hastily decided, including those which may require research and reflection. A decision rendered in these circumstances will undoubtedly provide grounds for subsequent appellate review. An erroneous suppression decision may well require that any conviction be reversed and a new trial granted.
Surely those urging this sequestration scheme do not mean to suggest that the Commonwealth or the defendant will not be permitted a continuance after the suppression hearing should they require more time in order properly to prepare for trial. These normal and necessary delays will pose substantial difficulties, however, when a jury waits, impatiently sequestered. In addition, this sequestration scheme is plainly inconsistent with our established rule that the Commonwealth has a right of appellate review, before *478trial, in the event that important Commonwealth evidence is suppressed. Commonwealth v. McDade, 462 Pa. 414, 416 n.1, 341 A.2d 450, 451 (1975) cert. denied, 424 U.S. 909, 96 S.Ct. 1102, 47 L.Ed.2d 312 (1976); Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 910, 84 S.Ct. 204, 11 L.Ed.2d 149 (1963). The trial judge’s awareness of the possibility of a Commonwealth appeal may well dispose him toward denying arguable suppression claims rather than permit the delay which a Commonwealth appeal would require. And of course in the event that evidence is suppressed and an appeal taken, Mr. Justice Nix’s sequestered jury will remain, in its hotel, at Commonwealth expense, isolated and idle.
Once the jury is selected and sworn jeopardy attaches. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Accordingly, if any problem less than “manifest necessity” results in the discharge of the first jury, the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy will prohibit “retrial” of the defendant. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). Realistically, we must expect that any number of problems which may arise during the extended time between selection and sequestration of the jury and the start of trial will be improperly swept under the rug in an attempt to proceed to trial with the original jury. On the other hand, should some serious problem amounting to “manifest necessity” require discharge of the first jury after the hearing but before trial, then the new pool of jurors will have been exposed to the publicity attendant on that hearing. In that event a continuance or a change of venue may be necessitated. At a minimum, further delay and substantial additional expense will ensue.
Fairness will of course require that the trial judge inform members of the jury pool that if selected they may be sequestered for a substantial period of time, for a period far longer than the time required for the trial alone. Thus we may. safely anticipate an extended and burdensome selection process as large numbers of potential jurors seek to be *479excused on the ground of personal hardship. Inevitably only those jurors who do not have business or personal affairs requiring attention will serve. The natural result of such a skewed selection scheme will be to produce a panel of jurors out of the mainstream of community life. Such a procedure is in direct conflict with the constitutional requirement that jury selection procedures serve to produce a cross-section of the community. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223, 98 S.Ct. 1029, 55 L.Ed.2d 234 (1978); see Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). As this Court has already emphasized: “Neither a defendant nor the Commonwealth has an interest in seating such a jury.” Jerome, supra, 478 Pa. at 511, 387 A.2d at 438.
Additionally, it is well known that a sequestered jury is at best an impatient jury, and that such juries are likely to develop hostility or resentment toward the defendant. State v. Allen, supra at 141, 373 A.2d at 381; id. at 164, 373 A.2d at 393 (Pashman, J., concurring); United States v. Schiavo, 504 F.2d 1, 23-24 (3rd Cir. 1974) (Aldisert, J., joined by Weis, J., dissenting); Amsterdam, Segal & Miller, Trial Manual 3 for the Defense of Criminal Cases, ¶ [343], at p. 1-350 (3d ed. 1974 & Supp.1978). Obviously, the possibility of such hostility is markedly increased when the jury spends its days idly in a hotel room rather than, at least, attending court and considering testimony. Not unlikely is the possibility that such a captive jury, frustrated by the entire affair, will attempt to perform its function quickly and without adequate deliberation. United States v. Acuff, 410 F.2d 463, 467 (6th Cir. 1969). Again, no interest of justice is served by such a scheme.
Today’s novel sequestration scheme will also force the defendant to select a jury before he knows what the Commonwealth’s evidence will be. In truth, this scheme deprives both the defendant and the Commonwealth of a pretrial suppression hearing altogether. Yet the opportunity to test the admissibility of Commonwealth evidence in order to prepare for trial is an important benefit to the defendant. And no less, the usual pretrial hearing provided *480by our Rules affords the Commonwealth the related benefit of preparing its case based on the knowledge of what evidence will be available to it. W. LaFave, 3 Search and Seizure, § 11.1, p. 476-77 (1978). As already indicated, our usual procedure allows the Commonwealth the opportunity to appeal those suppression decisions which significantly effect its case. It is clearly unfair to force the defendant and the Commonwealth to forego these advantages. Indeed it is established that constitutional due process places limits on the degree to which the state may circumscribe the defendant’s freedom in making trial decisions. See Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972) (state may not require defendant, wishing to testify, to do so before other defense evidence is offered). In rejecting the type of sequestration scheme proposed today, the New York Court of Appeals has just recently emphasized these same difficulties:
“The suggestion that sequestration may serve as an alternative to closure is impractical when a pretrial proceeding is involved. Generally at that stage there are no jurors to sequester and to delay the hearing until the jury has been, or is about to be drawn, would deprive the accused, and often the prosecutor, of the benefit of a pretrial ruling— that is, advance warning and time to prepare for trial on matters essential to the case.”
Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Leggett, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 444, 423 N.Y.S.2d 630, 639, 399 N.E.2d 518, 526 (1979). Given our system of pretrial suppression hearings, it would be a serious denial of due process for any trial court to require an objecting defendant either to select a jury or to decide whether to waive a jury trial before his suppression motions are decided.
Perhaps worst of all, this scheme will place considerable pressure on a defendant to avoid these difficulties by foregoing his right to a suppression hearing. New defendants will look happily upon the opportunity to argue their case before a jury which has been left isolated for days or weeks prior to trial. Basic notions of fairness and due process do not *481permit this Court to condition the availability of a suppression hearing on consent to such a trial. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) (government may not condition opportunity to suppress evidence on possibility that testimony at suppression hearing might become admissible at trial); cf. United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) (government may not use fear of death penalty to dissuade defendant from asserting right to jury trial); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967) (prosecution cannot use statements obtained from police officers threatened with discharge if they refused to testify). The proposed sequestration scheme would obviously place an impermissible chill on the exercise of fundamental fair trial rights.
The proposed sequestration scheme will place onerous burdens on the resources and administration of our criminal justice system. Today’s proposal will frustrate and delay prosecutions of criminal trials, will impose severe burdens on sequestered jurors and will create pressures which can operate only to deprive citizens of a fair trial. Inevitably this scheme will force those citizens it affects to face a criminal process significantly more hostile and less fair than ever anticipated by our Rules. It will also create a system clearly contrary to established concepts of due process.
CONCLUSION
Surely, as Jerome acknowledged, generally open judicial proceedings promote public confidence in the judicial system. But, equally, courts do not gain or retain public confidence by the denial of fair treatment to those citizens involved in our criminal process. Today’s ad hoc departure from the established limitations on our exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is plainly misguided and today’s action, at the expense of the proper and orderly administration of criminal justice and at the expense of those citizens involved in the criminal justice system, manifestly disserves the interests of justice. One can only hope that a majority of this *482Court, less swayed by its perceptions of the fashionable trends of the moment, will soon recognize the error of today’s misjudgment.
EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, J., join in this Dissenting Opinion.

. The media litigants in this case make no claim that their right of access is greater than that of the public. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 833-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2810, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); compare Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2914-15, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 850, 94 S.Ct. 2811, 2815, 41 L.Ed.2d 514 (1974) (Powell, J., dissenting).

. The permissibility of closing the trial of a criminal case, in so far as the question is controlled by the federal Constitution, is raised by a case presently pending before the United States Supreme Court, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, juris, postponed, 444 U.S. 896, 100 S.Ct. 204, 62 L.Ed.2d 132 (1979). Jerome considered only closure, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(f), of a pretrial suppression hearing. [Editor’s Note: After decision and during publication of the present case the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,-U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980).]

. Both the federal Constitution, Amends. VI & XIV and our state Constitution, art. I, § 9, insure the “accused” a “public trial.” This case does not require consideration of whether these constitutional guarantees provide a defendant an absolute right to public pretrial proceedings.
On the other hand, Jerome, in allowing a trial judge to close pretrial suppression hearings only when the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial and the public’s interest in orderly prompt criminal proceedings are seriously threatened, 478 Pa. at 503, 387 A.2d at 434-35, necessarily forecloses the argument that a defendant has an absolute right to waive public pretrial suppression proceedings and insist that they be closed. Jerome clearly acknowledged the general interest in open judicial proceedings, id., 478 Pa. at 501, 513, 387 A.2d at 434, 439, and required the trial court to exercise sound discretion in resolving the question of closure.

. The Supreme Court has squarely rejected any system which permits the jury to hear such evidence and relies on cautionary instructions to the jurors that they must disregard incriminating evidence they believe impermissibly obtained. Clearly it is unrealistic to believe that, having heard such impermissible evidence, jurors will be able to exclude it from their minds. “The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, . all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453, 69 S.Ct. 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring) quoted in Jackson, supra 338 n. 15, 84 S.Ct. at 1787.

. Rule 323(f) provides:
“(f) The hearing, either before or at trial, shall be held in open court unless defendant moves that it be held in the presence of only the defendant, counsel for the parties, court officers and necessary witnesses. If the hearing is held after the jury has been sworn, it shall be held outside the hearing and presence of the jury. In all cases the court may make such order concerning publicity of the proceedings as it deems appropriate under Rules 326 and 327.”
Rule 326 grants the trial court authority to issue orders governing witnesses and parties and concerning other procedures in widely-*466publicized or sensational cases. Rule 327 regulates public disclosure by court personnel in pending or imminent criminal proceedings. The present case presents no question under these rules.

. Mr. Justice Powell, a member of the majority, wrote separately to indicate his belief that the first amendment guaranteed media access absent a showing that without closure the defendant’s right to a fair trial would likely be jeopardized. 443 U.S. at 400-401, 99 S.Ct. a *4692916. But he concluded that the trial court had properly considered first amendment interests in authorizing closure. On the other hand, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, also joining the opinion of the Court, wrote separately to note that he would not find any first amendment right of access. 443 U.S. at 404-A06, 99 S.Ct. at 2918-19.

. Mr. Justice Nix is correct in noting that nearly all our prior cases concerning this provision have construed it as a guarantee of a legal remedy for a wrong or injury. Opinion of Mr. Justice Nix, ante at 321.

. It must be noted that Mr. Justice Kauffman’s proposed solution was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in Gannett, supra, at 376-78, 99 S.Ct. at 2904. Thus his suggestion that reconsideration of Jerome in light of Gannett is now required, ante at 337, is, to say the least, astonishing.

. Mr. Justice Kauffman bases his determination to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction on an erroneous belief that because there was no extended evidentiary hearing in the trial court that therefore the trial court necessarily gave no consideration whatsoever to claims of public access or to the possibility of alternative procedures. Ante at 330 n. 6, 337 n. 19. These inferences are wholly impermissible. It is manifestly clear that the trial court did consider the very claims for sequestration now pressed upon this Court, and there is, quite simply, no reason to believe that the trial court failed properly to consider media claims of access. Even assuming that some or all of the elaborate procedural requirements suggested by Mr. Justice Kauffman are appropriate, the possibility that they may not have been followed in this case is simply not a sufficient basis for extraordinary intrusion into this criminal proceeding. Whatever the defendant’s burden may properly be when he moves for an order closing the suppression hearing, Mr. Justice Kauffman overlooks the obvious fact that it is the party seeking extraordinary review in this Court, here the media, that always has the affirmative burden of showing such a denial of clear rights as to require this Court’s intervention.

. As this Court said in Jerome:
“Courts in the past have attempted to deal with prejudicial disclosure by lengthy voir dire of potential jurors, extensive continuances, burdensome sequestration, and cautionary instructions. Because these techniques do not eliminate prejudicial disclosure, but only may reduce some of its effects, all have proven unsatisfactory in many cases. Only one other method, change of venue, may in some cases put a case beyond the physical range of disclosure, but it may not be effective in cases of statewide or national attention, such as Commonwealth v. Boyle, or Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965). Further, pre-trial publicity may follow a case to its new venue.
Through voir dire, a court attempts to minimize the effect of pre-trial publicity by excluding from the jury those whom publicity has biased. But it cannot hope to eliminate all jurors who have been exposed to prejudicial information. In a highly publicized case, effective voir dire may distort the composition of the jury by screening out all those who take an active interest in news and public affairs. Neither a defendant nor the Commonwealth has an interest in seating such a jury. Other methods of dealing with prejudicial disclosure, such as sequestration, continuances, or cautionary instructions to the jury, do not realistically reduce premature prejudicial disclosure to which a jury is exposed.
Finally, many of the methods for eliminating the effects of prejudicial disclosure have other drawbacks. A continuance allows evidence to become stale and lengthens the period during which charges remain unresolved and the accused confined or held on bail pending disposition of the charges. Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114, 95 S.Ct. 854, 863, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (restraints on liberty caused by prolonged detention). Changes of venue and sequestration pose further problems of administration *474for courts and inconvenience for all persons connected with a case.”
478 Pa. at 511, 387 A.2d at 438-39.