Court Opinion

ID: 9578539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:13.131788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:22.186602
License: Public Domain

Utter, C.J.
(concurring and dissenting) — As the majority explains, difficult line-drawing and careful adjustment of burdens of proof are necessary in order to resolve the inherent conflict between the public's constitutionally protected interest in open pretrial proceedings and the criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. Although agreeing with the majority's statement of the requisite procedures for determining the propriety of closure of a pretrial proceeding, I disagree with the majority in that I would find that Const, art. 1, § 10 necessitates a more rigorous standard for closure. However, I concur in the majority's result, for even under this elevated standard of review, closure was appropriate in the present case.
*66The guaranty of open judicial proceedings has been a fundamental part of Anglo-American jurisprudence since the common law. " [J]ustice cannot survive behind walls of silence", and the requirement of open proceedings "guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 349, 350, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600, 86 S. Ct. 1507 (1966); See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 382-84, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608, 623-24, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979); Gannett, 443 U.S. at 411-33, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 641-55 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 492, 495, 43 L. Ed. 2d 328, 95 S. Ct. 1029 (1975). As the majority explains, this crucial requirement of open proceedings has been afforded express protection under the constitution of this state. Const, art. 1, § 10 "entitles the public, and . . . the press [which] is part of that public, to openly administered justice." Cohen v. Everett City Council, 85 Wn.2d 385, 388, 535 P.2d 801 (1975). Although the open proceedings requirement must not be administered in such a way as to infringe upon the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, Gannett, 443 U.S. at 392-94, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 629-30, the judiciary must preserve the public right of access to proceedings to the maximum extent possible.
The majority resolves the balance between the rights of the public and the rights of the criminal defendant by adopting the standard for closure of pretrial proceedings suggested by Mr. Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra. Under this standard, the defendant seeking closure must make some showing of "likelihood of jeopardy" to his constitutional rights from an open proceeding. Majority opinion at page 62. After hearing the arguments of the parties which are objecting to closure, the trial court "must weigh the competing interests of the defendant and the public." Majority opinion at page 64. Although the majority does not specify the ultimate standard of closure to be employed by the trial court in weighing the competing interests, it appears that the question for the *67trial court is "whether a fair trial for the defendant is likely to be jeopardized by publicity, if members of the press and public are present and free to report prejudicial evidence that will not be presented to the jury," Gannett, 443 U.S. at 400, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 634 (Powell, J., concurring); see majority opinion at pages 62, 64.
The majority is certainly correct in stating that an overly strict closure standard imposes an unconstitutional burden upon the defendant's fair trial rights. However, the standard which has been adopted by the majority fails to give sufficient deference to the public's constitutionally protected interest in open proceedings. I believe that our constitutional mandate of public proceedings requires that closure at pretrial proceedings be predicated upon not just a "likelihood of jeopardy", but rather a "substantial probability" of jeopardy to the defendant's fair trial rights.
Such a standard of "substantial probability" of jeopardy would be administered with the procedures outlined by the majority. A criminal defendant seeking closure would make an initial showing of substantial probability of jeopardy to his or her fair trial rights if the pretrial proceeding is conducted in the presence of public and press. Such a showing would necessarily include an explanation of the lack of practicable alternatives to closure. The burden would then shift to any parties objecting to closure to demonstrate that less restrictive alternatives to closure would adequately guard against the harm to the defendant's right to a fair trial. Finally, the trial court would determine whether there is in fact a substantial probability of jeopardy to the defendant's fair trial rights if the proceeding is held in the presence of public and press, and whether closure is necessary in order to guard against this danger.
The evidence presented to the trial court in the present case is sufficient to demonstrate a "substantial probability" of jeopardy to the defendant's fair trial rights if the suppression hearing were conducted in the presence of public and press. The evidence to be suppressed was prejudicial in nature, and the defense and prosecuting attorney both *68stated that an impartial jury could not be found if the suppression hearing testimony were publicized. The Belling-ham Herald is circulated in the county in which the trial would be held, and the Herald had already violated both the Washington Bench-Bar-Press Guidelines and an express request of the trial judge, by publishing potentially prejudicial ballistics information in the case. Finally, the evidence presented to the trial court adequately demonstrated that other less restrictive alternatives such as change of venue and sequestration of the jury panel were not practicable, since the Herald was distributed in the county to which the trial proceedings had been moved, and the prejudicial information concerning the suppression hearing could be publicized before a trial jury would even be impaneled.
Thus, the trial judge properly ordered closure and, as the majority explains, the trial judge correctly fashioned the closure order in the least restrictive fashion. Accordingly, I conclude, although using a different standard than the majority, that the trial court's order of closure was proper.