Court Opinion

ID: 9558049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:02:07.719683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:12.208778
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the excellent opinion *47of Brachtenbach, C.J. I feel, however, that the statement, "When a perceived clash between a defendant's fair trial right and the right of free speech arises, courts have an affirmative duty to try to accommodate both of those interests" should be clarified.
Where the public's right to openly administered justice does not infringe on the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, the above statement is a correct assessment of the court's responsibility. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973, 100 S. Ct. 2814 (1980). But where the public's right to open proceedings cannot be accommodated without infringing upon the defendant's constitutional due process rights, the defendant's rights must be preserved. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378-79, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979); Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d 51, 55, 615 P.2d 440 (1980); Richmond Newspapers, at 581 n.18. The First Amendment rights of the public and representatives of the press are not absolute, and must surrender to the defendant's fair trial rights where both cannot be accommodated.