Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside

In its opinion in the Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court case, the US Supreme Court said the decision as to whether a First Amendment right of access exists to a particular type of proceeding requires asking two questions:

Choose from the following options.

Is there a tradition of access and does public access play a positive role?

Is there a tradition of access and would access prejudice this individual’s case?

Does public access play a positive role but would it prejudice this individual’s case?

Would access prejudice this individual’s case and would alternatives to closure be effective?

Is there a tradition of access and does public access play a positive role?

The Supreme Court, in Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court, mentioned a judicial proceeding in which secrecy was appropriate. Which of the following is that proceeding?

Choose from the following options.

Proceedings in which jurors are absent.

Jury selection.

Grand jury proceedings.

Civil proceedings.

Grand jury proceedings.

In the case that was at issue in the Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court decision, the California judge presiding over the murder trial of Robert Diaz closed to the press and public and sealed the transcript of a proceeding. What type of proceeding was involved?

Choose from the following options.

Arraignment.

Preliminary hearing.

Voir dire.

Trial.

Preliminary hearing.

In Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court, the US Supreme Court said that in California, preliminary hearings traditionally had been

Choose from the following options.

Open to the press and public.

To the press but not to the public.

Closed to the press and public.

Open to the public but not to the press.

Open to the press and public.

The US Supreme Court said in the Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court ruling that public access to preliminary hearings plays a positive role because

Choose from the following options.

The preliminary hearing is largely a formality.

The publicity helps the public feel as if the police and courts are doing their job.

In the absence of a jury, public scrutiny protects fairness.

The preliminary hearing is a rehearsal for the inevitable trial.

In the absence of a jury, public scrutiny protects fairness.

Even if there is a First Amendment right of access by the press and public to a particular type of court proceeding, the US Supreme Court said in Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court that right may be abridged in a specific case if the trial judge finds

Choose from the following options.

A substantial probability of prejudice to the trial and alternatives to closure would be inconvenient for the court.

A substantial probability of prejudice to the trial that closure would prevent and that alternatives to closure would not be effective.

A substantial probability access would be a nuisance and closure would be effective in protecting fairness.

A substantial probability alternatives to closure would be ineffective and access would be inconvenient for the court.

A substantial probability of prejudice to the trial that closure would prevent and that alternatives to closure would not be effective.

What was the main legal question in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court?

Whether the First Amendment gives the public a right to access preliminary hearings in criminal cases.

Who was the defendant in the case?

Robert Diaz, a nurse charged with 12 counts of murder for administering lethal doses of lidocaine.

How long did Diaz’s preliminary hearing last?

41 days.

Why did Diaz request closure of the hearing?

He claimed national media attention threatened his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

What did the magistrate initially do regarding the hearing?

Closed the hearing to the public and press and sealed the transcript.

What did Press-Enterprise request after the hearing?

Access to the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

How did the California Supreme Court rule before the U.S. Supreme Court took the case?

It held that preliminary hearings do not have a general First Amendment right of access, only actual criminal trials do.

What was the Supreme Court’s holding in 1986?

The qualified First Amendment right of access applies to preliminary hearings in California.

What two factors guide whether a preliminary hearing can be closed?

1. There is a substantial probability that publicity would prejudice the defendant’s fair trial.
2. No reasonable alternatives short of closure exist.

Is the First Amendment right to access preliminary hearings absolute?

No, it is a qualified right.

What standard did the Supreme Court reject from California?

The “reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice” standard; the Court required a higher “substantial probability” standard.

Why is public access to preliminary hearings important?

It enhances fairness, ensures procedures are followed, and boosts public confidence in the criminal justice system.

How did the Court justify applying the First Amendment right to preliminary hearings?

Preliminary hearings function like trials (evidence presentation, cross-examination) and historically have been open to the public.

How does this case differ from Gannett Co. v. DePasquale?

Gannett focused on the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant; Press-Enterprise focused on the First Amendment right of the public.

What historical examples did the Court cite to support openness?

The Aaron Burr treason trial and early American and English traditions of public criminal trials.

What does “narrowly tailored” mean in the context of closure?

Any closure must only restrict what is necessary to protect the defendant’s fair trial rights and nothing more.

Can courts close preliminary hearings briefly for sensitive matters?

Yes, for example during suppression hearings or juvenile witness testimony, to protect fair-trial rights.

What is the purpose of observing preliminary hearings according to the Court?

To allow the public to verify fairness, confirm procedures are followed, and maintain trust in the justice system.

What procedural protections exist even if a hearing is open?

Cross-examination, exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, and representation by counsel.

How did the Court view the relationship between public access and the defendant’s right to a fair trial?

These interests are not necessarily inconsistent; openness can help assure a fair trial while serving the public’s First Amendment right.

What did the Court say about the role of public access in preventing “community outrage” or hostility?

Public access provides a “community therapeutic value”, giving people confidence that the law is enforced and reducing uncontrolled public anger or outrage.

Why might closure of an entire 41-day preliminary hearing rarely be justified?

Because not all parts of the hearing pose a risk of prejudicing the defendant, and alternatives like voir dire can address potential bias.

What must a court do on the record to justify closing a preliminary hearing under the First Amendment?

: Make specific findings demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.