Gannett Co., Inc. v. Depasquale

443 U.S. 368 (1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Clapp disappeared. He was last seen when with two male companions and he went out on his boat to fish. The two companions returned in the boat the same day and drove away in Clapp's pickup truck. Clapp was not with them. His family reported his absence to the police. An examination of the boat, laced with bullet holes, seemed to indicate that Clapp had met a violent death aboard it. Police began an intensive search for the two men. Ps carried the details of the story as they developed for the manhunt for Greathouse and Jones, the two men. Greathouse and Jones were charged with second-degree murder, robbery, and grand larceny. A woman was indicted for grand larceny. No part of the drama was left unturned by Ps. Eventually, motions to suppress evidence came before Judge DePasquale. Defense attorneys argued that the unabated buildup of adverse publicity had jeopardized the ability of Ds to receive a fair trial. They requested that the public and the press be excluded from the hearing. The District Attorney did not oppose the motion. No objection was made by Ps at the time of the closure motion. The trial judge granted the motion. The next day Ps wrote a letter to the trial judge asserting a 'right to cover this hearing,' and requesting that 'we . . . be given access to the transcript.' The judge refused. Ps then moved the court to set aside its exclusionary order. At the hearing, the judge deemed it 'unfortunate' that no representative of P had objected at the time of the closure motion. The judge emphasized that Ps' rights had to be balanced against the constitutional right of the defendants to a fair trial. The judge ruled that the interest of the press and the public was outweighed in this case by the defendants' right to a fair trial. Ps then commenced this proceeding in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, challenging the closure orders on First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The court held that the exclusionary orders transgressed the public's vital interest in open judicial proceedings and further constituted an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It accordingly vacated the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals held that the case was technically moot but noted that criminal trials are presumptively open to the public, including the press, but held that this presumption was overcome in this case because of the danger posed to the defendants' ability to receive a fair trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.