Court Opinion

ID: 9578540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:13.136359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:23.221900
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(dissenting) — The majority and the concurrence begin with an erroneous premise: that constitutional rights conflict. They thus reach an erroneous result: that a balance can and should be struck. As long as the court has the view that the constitutional right of the public (which includes the press, see Cohen v. Everett City Council, 85 Wn.2d 385, 535 P.2d 801 (1975)) to the open administration of justice (Const, art. 1, § 10), and the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial (Const, art. 1, § 22), must be accommodated by the individuals involved rather than guaranteed by the State, it will continue to reach the kind of result reached here. As in this case, the only argument will be on the standards for accommodation. But this premise is wrong. The constitutional rights of one person are not to be tested and accommodated against the constitutional rights of another; neither are these constitutional rights to be arranged in some hierarchy with one superior *69to another. Constitutional rights are the separate rights of individuals — alone or collectively — against the State. Interests may conflict; rights do not. See Linde, Fair Trials and Press Freedom — Two Rights Against the State, 13 Willamette L.J. 211 (1977).
To allow the State through one of its branches — here the judiciary — to act as a coat holder while individuals fight to assert their constitutional rights — not against the State but against each other — is a perversion of the whole notion of constitutional protection for the individual.
The parties to the murder trial had no right against the press nor any right to have the State exclude the press from the suppression hearing. The accused has a constitutional right of a fair trial which may be asserted against the State, not merely an interest to be asserted against the press. The State has an obligation to provide a fair trial or none at all. It cannot meet its obligation to one by denying the constitutional rights of others.
That is the no doubt unintended but insidious logic of a formula which speaks of conflicts between constitutional rights. It transforms the defendant's fair trial claim against the state into a claim against the media. It lets the state turn two constitutional limitations on its powers into a classic example of "let's you and him fight." It asks defendants and reporters to trade off their rights between themselves or let a court do it for them. But this is not constitutional law.
Linde, at 218.
I recognize the balancing test in free speech/free press cases has been used by this court and the United States Supreme Court. State v. Northwest Passage, Inc., 90 Wn.2d 741, 585 P.2d 794 (1978). Nevertheless, I believe the court should reexamine its position, particularly since, as I have indicated, it is contrary to correct constitutional analysis.
We have found in the past that the phrase "administered openly" in article 1, section 10, does not mean that every aspect of the judicial process must be public. Absolute access and the open administration of justice are not the *70same thing. While the right of the people to have justice administered openly may not be tampered with by the State, it is the function of the courts to determine when the open administration of justice requires public access. In In re Lewis, 51 Wn.2d 193, 316 P.2d 907 (1957), the court found no constitutional objection to excluding the public from a juvenile hearing. Furthermore, there are a number of circumstances cited by the majority in note 3 where the lack of public access is not found to be contrary to the open administration of justice. It is the proper responsibility of this court to make the determination of those circumstances when, for justice to be administered openly, public access is also required. See, e.g., Gannett Co. v. DePas-quale, 443 U.S. 368, 388 n.19, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608, 626-27, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979).
In order to comport with the requirements of article 1, section 10, must a pretrial suppression hearing be open to the public? I believe the answer is yes. The suppression hearing is intimately connected with the events of the actual trial and to close these proceedings to the public, including the press, would be contrary to the spirit and intent of article 1, section 10. See Gannett Co. v. DePas-quale, supra, 443 U.S. at 406, 436-37, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 638, 657 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
This court has the responsibility and duty to assure that each defendant has a fair trial, but this must be done without denying to the public its right of access under article 1, section 10. Both of these goals can be met. In the case of widespread media coverage, it may be more difficult, more troublesome, very inconvenient, and certainly more expensive, but it can be done. See, e.g., Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683, 96 S. Ct. 2791 (1976).
Not only do I believe this approach has constitutional validity, it is also good public policy. In a democratic society, the final responsibility for assuring the system works lies not with the courts, but with the people. This is particularly true with reference to individual rights. While the *71day-to-day duty to provide a fair trial rests with the courts, the fundamental protection lies with the people. Most specifically, it lies with that portion of the public which has it within its power to threaten the right of a fair trial: the press.
The notion of responsibility is not foreign to our constitution, e.g., article 1, section 5, and article 31. Inherent in the idea of responsibility is the requirement that those who have rights, although they may regard them as absolute, will not assert those rights in such a way as to trespass on the rights of others. With respect to the case of free press/fair trial, this idea has been expressed in the Bench-Bar-Press Principles and Guidelines (see West's Washington Court Rules 1979, at page 843).
All the daily newspapers of the state, acting through Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, have agreed to the Bench-Bar-Press Principles and Guidelines. This includes the Bellingham Herald. Nevertheless, the trial court found in the proceedings before us:
That disclosure of information [in the suppression hearings] herein would affect the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to obtain a trial by fair and impartial jury.
That the Bellingham Herald violated the Bench-Bar-Press Guidelines in this case twice before this hearing, including the express request not to publish.
Thus, Federated agreed to the guidelines, violated them with impunity, and now comes to this court for a negotiated settlement. It should be noted, however, that the reporter for the Bellingham Herald at the time she was excluded from the suppression hearing stated she " intend [ed] to stay within the Bench, Bar, Press guidelines.11
While I am disturbed at the majority's false premises, I am even more alarmed at the attitude of the plaintiff who seems to accept closure if a defendant can demonstrate "that an open proceeding will lead to a 'substantial probability' of 'irreparable damage' to his right of fair trial." Majority opinion at page 61. I find it incredible for the *72press to be negotiating its — and the public's — constitutional right of access. It is one thing to agree voluntarily to negotiate your action after the right is determined. See, e.g., Bench-Bar-Press Principles and Guidelines, supra at 846. It is entirely different to urge the court to negotiate your rights by a constitutional balancing act.
Rather than bargain away the public's constitutional rights while ignoring the Bench-Bar-Press Guidelines, I would think the press might prefer a fearless assertion of the constitutional right of an open proceeding, plus an equally fearless concern for the constitutional right of a defendant to a fair trial. With this certainty of belief in its own constitutional rights might come a responsible concern for the constitutional rights of others so that the unedifying spectacle brought before the court in this matter could have been avoided.
While some would argue that to expect the press to act responsibly with regard to the fair trial rights of a defendant would be, to use the words of Samuel Johnson in another context, "The triumph of hope over experience", I believe otherwise. But for an occasional aberration, the record of press regard for fair trial rights has been good. Moreover, once the right of access is declared and guaranteed, the nexus for the responsible exercise of that right will be made clear. This would make less attractive the easy progression of a press violation of Sixth Amendment rights, an appeal to the courts, a judicial balancing act, and the predictable self-serving editorials complaining of court repression of a free press. If, because of irresponsible activities of the press the guaranty of a fair trial becomes inordinately expensive and burdensome, the people, who first adopted article 1, section 10, will have it within their power if they choose to change that provision. Thus, the responsibility for the ultimate "balancing" of rights will return to its original source: the people of this state, not the courts. With this understanding of the vitality of article 1, section 10, the necessity for a fair trial, the locus of responsibility, *73and the possibility of corrective action, if needed, there is no need for judicial balancing.
I recognize that freedom is not easy and that the temptations for abuse are great. This is both the glory and danger of self-government. Freedom cannot be guaranteed by the courts or any other aspect of government. It can be guaranteed only by those who have it: in this instance a free press. See L. Hand, The Spirit of Liberty 189 (3d ed. 1960). The voluntary accommodation of constitutional rights was responsibly made by the Bench-Bar-Press Principles and Guidelines. I refuse to join as this court, responding to what I trust was an isolated instance of ignoring these guidelines by the Bellingham Herald, judicially negotiates away the constitutional right of the people for justice to be administered openly.
I dissent.
Wright, J., concurs with Dolliver, J.