New York Post Corp. v. Leibowitz, 2 N.Y.2d 677 (1957)

The public and the press have a right to access transcripts of a trial judge’s charge to the jury, grounded in public policy and constitutional provisions ensuring freedom of publication of judicial decisions.

Summary

After a defendant’s acquittal in a high-profile manslaughter case, the New York Post requested a transcript of the trial judge’s charge to the jury. The judge forbade the court stenographer from providing the transcript. The New York Post then initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the stenographer to furnish the transcript and to restrain the judge from interfering. The New York Court of Appeals held that the newspaper had a right to access the transcript. The court reasoned that open court proceedings and the free flow of information are vital to public scrutiny and an effective check on judicial power. The court also determined that a judge cannot prohibit a court stenographer from providing transcripts of judicial decisions to the public.

Facts

Following the acquittal of a probationary police officer named Surrey on manslaughter charges (a case that had garnered significant media attention), the New York Post requested a transcript of County Judge Leibowitz’s jury charge.

Initially, the court stenographer agreed to provide the transcript but later refused, claiming the trial judge had forbidden him from doing so.

The New York Post then commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking an order to compel the stenographer to furnish the transcript, restrain the trial judge from forbidding its release, and compel the judge to withdraw any prior restrictive directives.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, Special Term, denied the New York Post’s petition and granted the respondents’ (the judge and the stenographer) cross-motions to dismiss.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Special Term’s decision.

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal due to the importance of the questions presented.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a trial judge has the authority to prohibit a court stenographer from furnishing a transcript of the judge’s charge to the jury to a member of the public.
2. Whether the New York Post has a legal right to compel the court stenographer to furnish a transcript of the judge’s charge to the jury, upon payment of the required fees.

Holding

1. Yes, because Section 301 of the Judiciary Law does not empower a judge to prohibit the stenographer from making transcripts available, and the judge’s charge can be considered a “decision” that should be freely available.
2. Yes, because Section 66 of the Public Officers Law, read in conjunction with Article VI, Section 22 of the New York Constitution, entitles any member of the public to obtain a copy of the trial judge’s charge upon payment of the fees allowed by law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that public policy demands open court proceedings and the fullest public scrutiny. Citing Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, the court emphasized that “[a] trial is a public event” and “[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property.” Publicity, especially through newspaper reporting, acts as a crucial check on potential judicial abuse.

The court found that the trial judge exceeded his power in directing the stenographer not to furnish the transcript. While Section 301 of the Judiciary Law allows a judge to direct a stenographer to write out notes, it does not authorize a judge to prohibit the stenographer from providing transcripts to anyone requesting them.

Addressing the argument that the judge acted in an administrative capacity, the court noted that Article 78 proceedings allow for the granting of appropriate relief regardless of the initial form of the proceeding. Relief in the nature of mandamus may be granted to compel a public officer to refrain from action contravening the law.

The court emphasized that Article VI, Section 22 of the New York Constitution mandates that “judicial opinions or decisions shall nevertheless be free for publication by any person.” The judge’s charge to the jury qualifies as a “decision,” embodying the law of the case. To allow a judge to prohibit access would thwart the constitutional safeguard of free access to judicial decisions.

The court also considered Section 66 of the Public Officers Law, which requires custodians of public records to provide transcripts upon request and payment of fees. The court found that a court-appointed stenographer’s office qualifies as a “public office” and the stenographer’s notes are “records or other papers.” Interpreting these provisions in consonance with the constitutional right to publish judicial decisions, the court held that any member of the public is entitled to a copy of the trial judge’s charge upon payment of the prescribed fees.