Background: Litigation from Watergate revealed White House conversations were recorded, leading to a potential commercial opportunity.
Warner Communications' Argument: The record company sought access to the tapes to sell recordings for profit, arguing they should have the right.
Nixon's Argument: Nixon and his attorney argued that access should be for informing the public, not for commercial profit.
Court's Decision: The Supreme Court sided with Nixon, denying the record company access due to the profit motive.
Implication: Demonstrates that access to evidence is not guaranteed for commercial purposes and considers the Amendment rights of a defendant.
Gannett versus De Pasquale
Context: Pretrial motions concerning the admissibility of evidence in a case involving the shooting of an off-duty police officer by two youths.
Details: The youths confessed during interrogation, revealing the murder weapon, money, and crime details.
Defense Argument: Defense attorneys argued the confessions were inadmissible due to Amendment violations, seeking to exclude the confessions and related evidence.
Judge's Concern: Judge De Pasquale was worried about pretrial publicity of the confessions potentially tainting the jury pool.
Judge's Ruling: The judge sided with the defense and asked the media to leave the pretrial hearing.
Gannett's Argument: Gannett Association argued this was an unconstitutional abridgment of their rights, asserting the media represents the public's right to a fair trial.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court held that the press and public do not have a constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings.
Implication: The ruling emphasized that the Amendment refers to a fair and impartial trial, not pretrial proceedings.
Richmond Newspaper Case
Background: John Stephenson's murder case involved multiple judicial errors, leading to mistrials and a new trial.
Closure Request: The prosecution and defense jointly requested a closed trial from Judge Richard Taylor.
Judge's Decision: Judge Taylor agreed to close the trial, citing Gannett versus De Pasquale as precedent.
Richmond Newspapers' Appeal: Richmond Newspapers appealed, arguing misinterpretation of Gannett versus De Pasquale.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court agreed, stating the judge misconstrued their ruling because the Amendment provides for open trials.
Open Trial Presumption: Trials should presumptively be open unless there is an overriding interest in closure.
Overriding Interests Examples:
A young child who has undergone a traumatic experience.
A drug informant or law enforcement officer whose identity needs protection from a drug cartel.
Globe Case
Context: Riverside County Superior Court in California involving three rape victims testifying in open court.
Victims' Actions: The two 16-year-olds and one 17-year-old had previously spoken to the media to raise awareness about the crime.
Judge's Ruling: The judge ruled that newspapers could not be present during the two victims' testimony.
Globe Newspapers' Argument: Globe Newspapers argued that since the victims had already been public about their experiences, the ruling made no sense.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court stated that the court cannot be closed simply because minors are involved, especially when they have willingly testified.
Implication: Further endorsement of an open trial, and recognizing the press can be present when victims are willingly testifying and have already made their experiences public.
Press Enterprise One
Context: Rape murder case where the judge wanted to close voir dire (jury selection).
Press Enterprise's Request: Press Enterprise requested transcripts of the questions asked during voir dire, without identifying the jurors (Juror one, Juror two, etc.).
Judge's Denial: The judge denied the request.
Press Enterprise Lawsuit: Press Enterprise sued for the transcripts of the voir dire.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court stated that the transcripts were perfectly acceptable to turn over, as long as they did not invade the privacy of the jurors.
Implication: The press has a right of access to preliminary hearing information as long as juror privacy is protected.
Press Enterprise Two
Context: A magistrate excluded the press from a preliminary hearing about a nurse, Robert Diaz, accused of killing hospital patients.
Magistrate's Reasoning: The magistrate wanted to protect the privacy of the victims and their families due to the nature of the crime.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court sided with Press Enterprise, stating closure is only allowed when the defendant provides specific information that an open courtroom would substantially endanger their rights to a fair trial.
Key Standard: "Probable or substantial probability" of endangering the defendant's rights.
Impact: Supersedes Gannett versus De Pasquale by placing the burden of proof on the defendant to supply information and evidence to justify closing a pre-trial hearing.
Power of the Courts: Contempt
Two Types of Contempt:
Civil: Compelling someone to do something (e.g., turn over notes).
Criminal: Disrespectful actions toward the court.
Criminal Contempt
Direct Criminal Contempt: Disrupting the legal process in the courtroom.
This is constitutional.
Indirect Contempt: Actions outside the courtroom that challenge the court's authority.
Ruled unconstitutional.
Contempt Case Examples
Bridges Case
Context: A union official questioned a judge's decision regarding a union dispute and was charged with indirect criminal contempt.
Supreme Court Ruling: Criminal contempt requires an "extremely serious evil, imminent threat" to the court's functioning.
Similarity to Schenck versus United States: Echoes the "clear and present danger" doctrine from Schenck versus The United States (1919).
Pentecamp versus Florida
Context: The Miami Herald published inaccurate editorials accusing a judge of being soft on criminals, leading to contempt charges.
Supreme Court Ruling: Even inaccurate information does not automatically warrant a contempt charge; statements must pose a "clear and present danger" to justice.
Impact: Reinforces the application of the clear and present danger doctrine to contempt charges.
Craig versus Harney
Context: Craig made comments outside the courtroom about a judge being unfair in a landlord-tenant dispute, leading to a contempt charge.
Supreme Court Ruling: Contempt power should not be used to punish the media unless the statements pose a "serious and imminent threat" to the administration of justice.
Impact: Further limits the use of indirect criminal contempt, emphasizing disruption within the courtroom as the primary grounds for contempt charges.
Indirect Criminal Contempt: The court stated that indirect criminal contempt is no longer constitutionally employed by the court being limited to disruption of the court room.
Dickinson versus the United States (Collateral Bar Rule)
Context: Two reporters violated a judge's order not to release information about Vista volunteers being suspects in the murder of the governor of Louisiana.
Reporters' Argument: Dickinson believed the order was an unconstitutional prior restraint and would be overturned.
Court Ruling: The Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals acknowledged the order was unconstitutional but upheld the $500 fine.
Collateral Bar Rule: One must obey court orders, even if believed unconstitutional, and seek to overturn them through the court system rather than ignoring them.