October 24, 2011
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE (1979)
Posted by Alissa Widman under Case Briefs | Tags: Carol Ritter, Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, pretrial, Supreme Court |[2] Comments
1. Facts of Case
In GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE (1979), Seneca County Court Judge Daniel DePasquale granted pretrial motions to exclude the public and the press from the trial of three individuals charged with the murder of an off-duty police officer in New York. It was argued that the buildup of publicity regarding the individuals involved jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. At the same hearing, DePasquale also granted pretrial motions to suppress evidence and confessions by the defendants. No one present during the pretrial hearing, including Gannett reporter Carol Ritter, objected to the motions or the court’s rulings.
The following day, Ritter sent a letter asserting her right to cover the hearing. The judge reviewed the pretrial motions and said the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighed the right of the press to cover the pretrial suppression hearing. Ritter took her case to the New York Supreme Court, where she defended it with the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.The New York Supreme Court found DePasquale’s order unlawful. On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, however, DePasquale’s decision was upheld. The case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. Legal Issue
The question presented in this case is whether members of the public have an independent constitutional right to access to a pretrial judicial proceeding, even though the accused, the prosecutor and the trial judge all have agreed to the closure of that proceeding in order to assure a fair trial.
3. Decision
Ritter’s letter was reviewed and ultimately the Supreme Court decided the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighed the right of the press to cover the pretrial suppression hearing. The closure of pretrial hearings to the media was held acceptable.
4. Analysis
The court reasoned a trial judge has the right to bar public scrutiny that might negatively influence court proceedings or jeopardize the right of due process for the accused. The court recognized media may, at times, influence public opinion, and restricted coverage in the interest of fairness and to avoid prejudicing the jury with pretrial publicity. The court argued that the right of the public to be informed about the trial and the right of the accused to receive a fair trial must be balanced; in this case, the right to a fair trial outweighed the right of the public to be informed.
A quote from The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication textbook explains the ruling:
“There can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system. But there is a strong societal interest in other constitutional guarantees extended to the accused as well.” — Justice Potter Stewart (pg. 433-434)
5. Questions
1. Do you agree with the ruling in this case; why or why not?
2. How do you think this case’s outcome would have differed if Gannett reporter Carol Ritter had spoken up in the courtroom and not waited to write a letter a day later?
3. What is the significance of this case for journalists?
2 thoughts on “GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE (1979)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 24th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
1. I am wondering if the fact that the defendants were accused of killing a cop had anything to do with this. I know these crimes are usually taken very seriously by the courts. I think there were other tactics the court could have used before coming to this action. They could have sequestered the jury, or issued gag orders on the jury. I do not think they needed to close the doors on the press. A topic of this nature seems to be of great public interest. What if there was police brutality? Since the victim was a public servant I feel the press should have definitely been allowed to report on this case.
2. I don’t think the case would have been any different had the reporter spoken up while in court that day. I think with the severity of the exclusion (not even releasing the transcripts to the press) it shows that the judge had made a firm decision before announcing his intention and nothing was going to sway him.
3. For journalists, the significance of the case is that this instance of exclusion could set precedence for future exclusions of the press by the court.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Good, but don’t forget, next came Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, which clarified this case and said that the public, not just the defendant, has a right to the trial.