Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia

Last updated
Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 19, 1980
Decided July 2, 1980
Full case nameRichmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia
Docket no. 79-243
Citations448 U.S. 555 ( more )
100 S. Ct. 2814; 65 L. Ed. 2d 973
Argument Oral argument
Case history
SubsequentNone
Holding
Closing of the trial to the public in this case was unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
PluralityBurger, joined by White, Stevens
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Marshall
ConcurrenceStewart
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceWhite
ConcurrenceStevens
DissentRehnquist
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in correspondence with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the freedom of the press, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After a murder case ended in three mistrials, the judge closed the fourth trial to the public and the press. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the closing to be in violation of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment asserting that the First Amendment implicitly guarantees the press access to public trials.

Contents

Background

At about 6:00pm on December 2, 1975, the body of Lillian M. Keller, the manager of the Holly Court Motel, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. [1] Howard Franklin Bittorf, a resident in the motel at the time of the murder, and his brother-in-law, John Paul Stevenson were indicted on March 16, 1976, by the Commonwealth of Virginia grand jury for Hanover county for the murder. [2]

Prior litigation

On July 16, 1976, a Hanover County Circuit Court jury found Stevenson guilty of second-degree murder. [2] On appeal, on October 7, 1977, Stevenson's conviction was overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court due to issues of hearsay and inconclusive forensic test results. [2] [3] On May 30, 1978, during Stevenson's second trial, a juror requested to be excused and no alternate was obtainable. [2] Stevenson's second trial was declared a mistrial. On June 6, 1978, Stevenson's third trial was also declared a mistrial because a potential juror revealed information about Stevenson's previous trials to other potential jurors. [2] On September 11, 1978, Stevenson's fourth trial began. The defense filed a motion for the trial to be closed to the press and public, in order to protect Stevenson's right to a fair trial, without any objections from the prosecution or the two Richmond Newspaper reporters present. [2] [3] Judge Richard H. C. Taylor acting in accordance with a state statute which "authorizes the court in its discretion to exclude from the trial any persons whose presence would impair the conduct of a fair trial" granted the motion and ordered the courtroom to be cleared of all unnecessary parties, including the Richmond reporters. [4]

Later that same day, however, Richmond Newspapers requested "a hearing on a motion to vacate the closure order" arguing that there was no significant evidence supporting closure and that the judge did not consider any alternative measures to ensure a fair trial. [2] [3] The trial judge denied the motion and, therefore, ordered closure. Afterwards, Stevenson's fourth trial continued, without the presence of the public, press, or jury. The trial judge found Stevenson, not guilty. [1]

On November 8, 1978, the newspaper filed an appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court, asking the court to find the closing of the Stevenson trial to be in error. [2] The Virginia Supreme Court, on July 9, 1979, dismissed the appeal, citing a recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gannett v. DePasquale. [5] [6] Issued just a week prior, the decision held that there is "no public right to a public trial." [6] Considering the confusion that the Gannett v. DePasquale ruling caused, along with an increase in courtroom closings, many other press organizations joined Richmond Newspapers as they brought their case to the United States Supreme Court. [7]

Supreme Court

Argument

J. Marshall Coleman, Attorney General of Virginia, argued for the appellees before the Supreme Court. Marshall Coleman 1976.jpg
J. Marshall Coleman, Attorney General of Virginia, argued for the appellees before the Supreme Court.

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. appealed the Virginia Supreme Court's decision to the United States Supreme Court. Oral Argument took place on February 2, 1980, with Laurence H. Tribe arguing on behalf of Richmond Newspapers and J. Marshall Coleman, the Attorney General of Virginia at the time, arguing on behalf of Virginia, et al. [8]

In his opening argument, Laurence Tribe asserted that the reasons given by the court to close the trial (including the layout of the courtroom and the possibility of prejudicial information affecting the impartiality of the jury) were not compelling enough to order closure. [8] Additionally, Tribe argued that the trial judge had not utilized nor considered other, less drastic alternatives to ensure the fairness of the trial. [8] Subsequently, Tribe claimed that the Virginia statute, which authorized the trial judge in this case to close off the entire trial to the press and public, was unconstitutional, violating the Sixth Amendment, which grants the right to a public trial, the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizenship rights, and the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. [8]

In his oral argument, Coleman asserted that the amendments in question, particularly the Sixth Amendment, were in place to protect the accused, not the public. [8] Furthermore, Coleman argued that the statute in question was, indeed, constitutional because, acting in accordance with the statute, the prosecutor, the judge, and the defense counsel, "two of whom are charged with representing the public interest," all agreed to the closure. [8] He also went on to say that tapes of the fourth Stevenson trial became available to the public after the completion of the trial, although Tribe later refuted that "a violation of publicity is not rectified by the existence of a tape recording." [8]

After Coleman concluded, Tribe returned to continue his oral argument. On the matter of overruling Gannett, Tribe contended that such a measure was unnecessary as the ruling in Gannett was applicable to pretrial suppression hearings, while the Richmond case referred to trials, not pretrials. [8] He concluded his argument by stating that a "standard of compelling need" is needed in order for a judge to close a trial to the press and public. [8]

Decision

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion of the Court. Warren e burger photo.jpeg
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion of the Court.

In July 1980, the Court determined in a 7-1 decision in favor of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. [8] Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion of the Court. [8] Joined by Justice Byron White and Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Burger began the opinion with a thorough review of the history and concept of a public trial, explaining that, traditionally, courts have been open to "all who care to observe." [9] The Court then went on to discuss the merit of a Constitutional argument for a public trial:

The State argued that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not contain any explicit provisions which guarantee the public a right to access. The Court said that the First and Fourteenth Amendment expressly guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to public assembly, share a common purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government and were enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being presumptively open. Therefore ‘the First Amendment guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time the Amendment was adopted. [9]

Justice Burger chose not to make a case for the public's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, unlike Justice Harry Blackmun in his Gannett decision. The Court concluded its opinion by stating "The right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be eviscerated." [3]

Concurrences

Justice White, despite joining the majority opinion, wrote separately to state that this particular case would have been unnecessary had the Gannett decision been narrower, forbidding the exclusion of the public from criminal trials in more specifically tailored circumstances. [9]

Justice Stevens, who also joined the majority opinion, wrote separately to "emphasize that until this decision the Court had accorded virtually absolute protection to the dissemination of information or ideas, but never before had it squarely held that the acquisition of newsworthy matter is entitled to any constitutional protection whatsoever." [9]

Justice William J. Brennan also wrote a concurrence, which was joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Brennan noted that there is a right for the public to attend trials implicitly stated in the Constitution and that alone signifies that a trial judge or other parties cannot constitutionally close off a trial to the public. [9]

Justice Potter Stewart, on the other hand, concurred that the right of public access to trials is not always guaranteed and certain circumstances may justify a limitation on the unrestricted presence of the public at the trial. He continued to state, however, "in this case the trial judge failed to recognize the right of the press and public to be present." [9]

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote separately, arguing that there is a Sixth Amendment argument to be made for the right of a public trial. [9]

Dissent

Justice William Rehnquist filed a dissent finding that there is no explicit guarantee for public access to the courtroom in the Constitution and, therefore, "if the prosecution and the defense find that they have adequate reasons to close a trial to the public, this should be upheld by the Courts." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regarding right to a jury trial

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials".

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision has been effectively overturned.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case involving freedom of the press publishing public information. The Court held that both a Georgia statute prohibiting the release of a rape victim's name and its common-law privacy action counterpart were unconstitutional. The case was argued on November 11, 1974 and decided on March 3, 1975.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling, and also overturned certain laws enacted by the state of Virginia in 1956 as part of the Stanley Plan and massive resistance, as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The statutes here stricken down by the Supreme Court had expanded the definitions of the traditional common law crimes of champerty and maintenance, as well as barratry, and had been targeted at the NAACP and its civil rights litigation.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the right to a speedy trial does not guarantee the right to speedy sentencing. It was decided on May 19, 2016.

The open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 Stevenson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 237S.E.2d779 ( Va. 1977).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Campbell, Douglas (1994). Free Press v. Fair Trial: Court Decisions Since 1807. Praeger. pp. 160–161.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).
  4. ↑ "Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia". CaseBriefs.
  5. ↑ Gannett Company, Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
  6. 1 2 Kane, Peter E. (1992). Murder, courts, and the press : issues in free press/fair trial (Revised and expanded ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN   9780809317813. OCLC   42922778.
  7. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (October 10, 1979). "Justices to Hear Dispute on Trial That Excluded Public and Press". New York Times.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia". Oyez.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia". Global Freedom of Expression.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.