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.”