Free Press/Fair Trial - Last Few Cases

A few last cases to consider as an extension of today's discussion:

Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)

Here, the Virginia Pilot newspaper publishes an accurate story about the confidential proceedings of the state's Judicial Inquiry and Review Board.

The reporter identified a judge who was under investigation.

State law authorized the board to hear complaints about a judge's misconduct or disability. It is a crime under state law to reveal information about these hearings, which are closed to the public and the media.

Confidentiality was necessary to protect the filing of complaints, testimony of witnesses, to protect a judge from injury that might result from publishing baseless charges, and to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

The Supreme Court rules for the news organization. While the press has no right to gain access to this information, it can't be punished once it has the information, the Court rules.

The First Amendment does not permit criminal punishment of third persons (including reporters) who did not take part in the Board's proceedings.

Publication of this information, the Court ruled, "lies near the core of the First Amendment."

The state's interests were "insufficient to justify the actual and potential encroachment on the freedom of speech and of the press," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote.

The Board could meet in secret and keep its reports confidential, but once the media had the information, they could report on it - it was fair game.


Belo Broadcasting v. Clark, 654 F. 2d 426 (1981)

Indictments were handed down against the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, two attorneys, and a labor leader, for their roles in a bribery scheme.

The speaker and the attorneys were later acquitted. Broadcasters sought to air audio tapes made during an FBI sting operation that led to the indictments. The tapes included discussions between the defendants and undercover agents.

The district court refuses the request, ruling that release would make it hard for the remaining defendant to be tried by an impartial jury. The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirms - there is a right to inspect and copy judicial documents and records, but that right is not absolute.

Lower courts have a lot of discretion in granting or refusing access to this material. The fear that the defendants' right to trial might be prejudiced if the tapes were broadcast was a legitimate one, the court held.

Appeals courts shouldn't second guess lower courts, the appeals panel rules.


Publicker Industries v. Cohen, 733 F. 2d 1059 (1984)

This case arises from a proxy fight to determine control of Publicker Industries, a publicly traded corporation. The Neuman family controlled almost 40 percent of Publicker's shares. David Cohen seeks to gain control of the Publicker board at a 1982 stockholders' meeting.

Cohen had entered into an agreement with members of the Neuman family granting him their irrevocable proxies to be voted at the meeting. Cohen agreed to buy a substantial chunk of the family's stock in Publicker if he succeeded in taking control.

But other members of the family weren't happy - they sued to block the sale, which was later set aside. Publicker sought a TRO to bar Cohen from soliciting proxies, an act which Cohen claimed violated federal securities law. A public hearing is scheduled.

A Philadelphia Inquirer reporter, Dick Cooper, arrives at the hearing after lunch. Publicker immediately moves to close the hearing.

A district court judge agrees with Publicker, ruling that the press would be usurping the judge's function of determining whether the information at the hearing should be revealed.

Cooper objects to the closing, and asks for the chance to be heard through counsel.

But the district court rejects the Inquirer's attempt to have the proceedings reopened. They then denied the paper's motion for access to the hearing transcript.

The paper's parent company, PNI, argued that the closure and the seal order violated common law and the First Amendment.

The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reverses the lower court, finding that civil proceedings are presumptively open to the public and the news media. This right of access to civil trials and records is as well established as our right of access to criminal proceedings.

And the press? The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the press and the public should have access to criminal trials, but it didn't rule on civil cases. But here, the Third Circuit panel finds that the public's right of access to civil trials is inherent in the nature of our democratic form of government.

Justice Holmes, writing in another case, said that access to civil proceedings was important because of "the security which publicity gives for the proper administration of justice.

Another vote for transparency; just try explaining that to our president.

Access "enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact finding process," the court ruled. We must be allowed to participate so that we can be a check on the judicial process.