journal article Show
Virginia Law Review Vol. 73, No. 6 (Sep., 1987) , pp. 1111-1143 (33 pages) Published By: Virginia Law Review https://doi.org/10.2307/1073037 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1073037 Journal Information The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country. Publisher Information The Virginia Law Review is published by the Virginia Law Review Association, an independent publishing institution staffed and directed solely by law students at the University of Virginia School of Law. The Virginia Law Review was permanently organized on April 23, 1913, and today has among its ranks approximately eighty current student members and hundreds of alumni across the country. The members of the Virginia Law Review Association select and edit all of the pieces published in the eight annual issues of the Virginia Law Review. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
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. Background[edit]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[edit]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[edit]Argument[edit] 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[edit]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:
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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]
References[edit]
External links[edit]
What were the main rationales for the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Richmond Newspapers?JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded that the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public.
In what case did the Supreme Court rule that a newspaper?This lesson focuses on the 1964 landmark freedom of the press case New York Times v. Sullivan. The Court held that the First Amendment protects newspapers even when they print false statements, as long as the newspapers did not act with “actual malice.”
In what year did Richmond Newspaper v Virginia occur?1980Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia / Date decidednull
|
