« Ind. Law - It's the Law: Part 2 of "Death penalty explained in three parts" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Four 7th Circuit opinions today involving Indiana cases »

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Courts - More on: "You don’t see newspapers fighting to open court proceedings the way they used to, and people are starting to notice"

This ILB entry yesterday quoted from an article by Adam Liptak of the NY Times, which centered on:

the case of Eric Presley, a Georgia man convicted of cocaine trafficking. The judge closed the courtroom during jury selection in Mr. Presley’s case, on the theory that it was too small to accommodate both potential jurors and the public. Citing the public’s lack of access to the jury selection, Mr. Presley appealed, and the Supreme Court will soon consider whether to hear his case.

Thanks to The Press-Enterprise, a newspaper in Riverside, Calif., the press and the public have nearly an absolute constitutional right to attend jury selection in criminal cases. In the 1980s, the paper fought ferociously to establish that principle, taking two access cases to the Supreme Court.

The Times linked, via the Cornell Law Supreme Court collection, to Press Enterprise v. Superior Court (478 US 1 - 6/30/1986).

The NYT also linked to a brief dated July 9, 2009, filed in the Presley case. The brief concludes:

The Georgia Supreme Court has approved the routine closure of voir dire to the public, on the grounds that the trial court has an overriding interest in avoiding contamination of the jurors. No case-specific findings are needed to support such closure. This ruling conflicts with the opinions of numerous federal Courts of Appeal and state appellate courts that do require case-specific findings. This Court should grant the writ of certiorari to resolve this conflict and to protect the fundamental right to a public trial.

A considerable number of federal and state appellate courts have held that those seeking to exclude the public from our courtrooms must demonstrate that there is no less intrusive means of protecting their asserted interests. But the Georgia Supreme Court has reached the opposite conclusion, joining what has been called the "emerging view" and even the "majority view." This Court should grant the writ of certiorari to end this conflict in the lower courts, and to provide the "clear guidance" that the Georgia Supreme Court determined was lacking.

Today the Louisville Courier Journal has this continually updated story, originally headed "Judge closes Stinson jury selection to media," that includes these quotes:
Stinson’s attorneys objected to any postponement of the trial, which continued Tuesday with jury selection. Earlier Tuesday Gibson ordered the media to leave the courtroom during jury selection. Gibson also refused a request by The Courier-Journal to hold a hearing before closing jury selection, saying it would be too distracting to the selection process.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 1, 2009 11:28 AM
Posted to Courts in general