New York Law Review

Tag: Pretrial Hearings

  • Matter of New York Times Co. v. Bell, 503 N.E.2d 1100 (N.Y. 1986): Balancing Fair Trial Rights and Public Access to Pretrial Hearings

    Matter of New York Times Co. v. Bell, 503 N.E.2d 1100 (N.Y. 1986)

    The public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to pretrial suppression hearings, which can only be overcome by specific findings demonstrating a substantial probability that a defendant’s right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by publicity and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect those rights.

    Summary

    Robert Chambers, charged with murder, sought to close his pretrial suppression hearing to the public and press, arguing that publicity would taint the jury pool. The trial court granted the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that while the public and press have a First Amendment right of access to pretrial suppression hearings, this right is not absolute and can be overcome if the defendant demonstrates a substantial probability of prejudice to their fair trial rights that closure would prevent, and that no reasonable alternatives exist. The Court found that the defendant failed to meet this burden.

    Facts

    Robert Chambers was charged with the murder of Jennifer Levin. Prior to the Huntley hearing (a suppression hearing to determine the admissibility of statements made by the defendant), Chambers moved to close the courtroom to the public and press. He argued that disclosure of any suppressed statement would threaten the impaneling of an impartial jury, violating his right to a fair trial. He proposed providing redacted transcripts after the jury was sworn. The prosecution opposed the closure, asserting that the defendant’s statements had already been substantially disclosed to the public.

    Procedural History

    The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to close the courtroom. The media petitioners commenced an Article 78 proceeding to enjoin the closure. The Appellate Division granted the petition and vacated the closure order. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in closing the pretrial suppression hearing to the public and press, based on the defendant’s claim that publicity would prejudice his right to a fair trial.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to make specific findings demonstrating a substantial probability that his right to a fair trial would be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and that reasonable alternatives to closure could not adequately protect his fair trial rights.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged the tension between the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the public’s and press’s right to access criminal proceedings under the First Amendment. Citing Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, the court recognized the importance of open proceedings to freedom of speech and the press. The Court extended this right of access to pretrial suppression hearings, noting their significance in challenging police and prosecutorial conduct.

    However, the Court emphasized that this right of access is not absolute. A defendant can overcome this right by demonstrating a substantial probability that their right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect their fair trial rights. This requires “specific findings” by the trial court.

    In this case, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet this burden. His claims were vague and speculative, and the trial court’s decision was based on the “possibility” of tainted evidence, not a substantial probability of prejudice. Moreover, much of the information the defendant sought to suppress had already been disclosed in his own pretrial motions. The Court cited Press-Enterprise II for the proposition that voir dire can be used to identify jurors whose prior knowledge of the case would prevent them from rendering an impartial verdict.

    The Court rejected remitting the case for further findings, noting that the record did not support the necessary findings for closure. Therefore, the trial court improperly closed the hearing, violating the petitioners’ First Amendment rights. As the Court noted, “By denying public access to the suppression hearing on a ‘possibility’ that there might be tainted, nonpublic evidence that might impair the selection of an impartial jury — which could very likely be said of every suppression hearing in every highly publicized case — the trial court improperly closed the door on petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

  • Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 43 N.Y.2d 370 (1977): Balancing Fair Trial Rights and Public Access to Pretrial Hearings

    Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 43 N.Y.2d 370 (1977)

    Pretrial suppression hearings can be closed to the public, including the press, when there is a reasonable probability that an open hearing would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

    Summary

    During a pretrial suppression hearing in a murder case, the trial court closed the proceedings to the public and press to protect the defendants’ fair trial rights. Gannett Co., a media organization, challenged the closure order. The New York Court of Appeals held that pretrial suppression hearings can be closed to the public when an open hearing poses a reasonable probability of prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized the trial court’s inherent power to control its own process and ensure a fair trial, balancing the public’s right to access with the defendant’s constitutional rights.

    Facts

    Two individuals, Greathouse and Jones, were indicted for murder and robbery. Prior to trial, a pretrial suppression hearing was scheduled. Defense attorneys requested that the hearing be closed to the public due to concerns about prejudicial publicity. The District Attorney did not object. The trial court granted the motion, closing the hearing. Gannett Co., a news organization, sought access to the hearing transcript, arguing that the closure violated the public’s right to access criminal proceedings.

    Procedural History

    The trial court initially granted the closure motion. Gannett Co. requested reconsideration and access to the hearing transcripts, which was denied by the trial court. The Appellate Division disagreed and granted Gannett’s request for access. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a trial court can close a pretrial suppression hearing to the public and press to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

    Holding

    Yes, because at the point where press commentary on pretrial hearings would threaten the impaneling of a constitutionally impartial jury in the county of venue, pretrial evidentiary hearings in this State are presumptively to be closed to the public.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals recognized the importance of public access to criminal trials but emphasized that this right is not absolute. The Court acknowledged that criminal trials are presumptively open to the public, but public access should not interfere with orderly judicial process. Quoting People v. Jelke, the Court stated that the public trial concept has “never been viewed as imposing a rigid, inflexible straitjacket on the courts. It has uniformly been held to be subject to the inherent power of the court to preserve order and decorum in the courtroom, to protect the rights of parties and witnesses, and generally to further the administration of justice”. The Court distinguished suppression hearings from trials, noting that suppression hearings are not specifically within the meaning of “trial.” The court’s role at the suppression hearing is to ensure that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights is not used against them. The Court reasoned that widespread knowledge of inadmissible evidence could predetermine guilt, and the trial court has a duty to prevent this. According to the court, “To allow public disclosure of potentially tainted evidence, which the trial court has the constitutional obligation to exclude, is to involve the court itself in the illegality. This potential taint of its own process can neither be condoned nor countenanced.” The Court further explained that “pretrial evidentiary hearings in this State are presumptively to be closed to the public” where press commentary on those hearings would threaten the impaneling of a constitutionally impartial jury. The court held that trial courts have the power to exclude the public from pretrial suppression hearings to avoid becoming a link in the chain of prejudicial disclosures, emphasizing the need to balance the public’s right to know with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court indicated that “the extent of the media’s right to access should not remain unresolved, for it places in issue the very integrity of our courts.”