Court Opinion

ID: 9648713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:33:19.320807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:04.857180
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
The defendant, David Hayes, a Pennsylvania state legislator from Erie, Pennsylvania, was arrested and charged with two counts of rape, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, one count of indecent assault, and one count of corruption of a minor.
Immediately prior to the commencement of trial, the Honorable Samuel Strauss (the trial judge) ordered the suppression hearing closed to the public and the media. The Pittsburgh Press Company intervened and petitioned this Court for the exercise of plenary jurisdiction and for a stay and reversal of the lower court’s order. We granted the stay and immediately heard oral argument from the attorneys for the Pittsburgh Press Company, Tribune-Review Publishing Company, Allegheny County District Attorney’s office and defendant.
I would hold that all criminal proceedings are open to the public and to the media. The public’s and the media’s right *439to attend these proceedings is absolute. Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides “All Courts shall be open”; this article prohibits secret or closed hearings and trials.
Human institutions have a tendency toward corruption; only when certain checks and balances are permitted and/or imposed does this tendency become neutralized. The tendency of corruption in the judiciary becomes greatest when the public and the media (the public’s eyes and ears) are excluded from judicial proceedings. As I conceive of a democracy and of a free and informed citizenry, the right of the public and of the media to attend court proceedings must be absolute.
The rights of a litigant/defendant can be adequately protected by numerous judicial tools: change of venue, postponements, voir dire of prospective jurors, sequestration of jurors, etc.1
Therefore, I would reverse the lower court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

. For a view of problems that some courts have had in attempting to resolve this issue, see Gannett v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979); United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835 (3rd Cir. 1978); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 478 Pa. 484, 387 A.2d 425 (1978).