Jeffries v. State
1998 WL 879253, 724 So. 2d 897 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court order prohibiting a reporter from publishing lawfully obtained information from an open court proceeding constitutes a presumptively invalid prior restraint on speech, and a criminal contempt conviction based on violating such an order is invalid if proper procedural safeguards for constructive contempt are not afforded.
Facts:
- Cynthia Jeffries, a reporter for the Delta Democrat Times, attended an open court manslaughter sentencing hearing for Brian Hollingsworth in the Circuit Court of Washington County.
- During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor discussed portions of Brian Hollingsworth's juvenile record in an effort to persuade the judge to impose the maximum sentence.
- After the prosecutor's statements, Judge Shirley Byers asked Jeffries to approach the bench and orally ordered her not to record or publish information from Brian Hollingsworth's juvenile record, threatening contempt if she did.
- Five days later, the Delta Democrat Times published an article written by Jeffries which included details of Brian Hollingsworth's juvenile charges, such as manufacturing marijuana, grand larceny, and auto burglary.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Jeffries attended a manslaughter sentencing hearing for Brian Hollingsworth in the Circuit Court of Washington County.
- Judge Shirley Byers issued an oral order to Jeffries, prohibiting her from publishing details of Brian Hollingsworth's juvenile record discussed in open court.
- An article written by Jeffries containing the juvenile record details was subsequently published in the Delta Democrat Times.
- The Circuit Court of Washington County issued an arrest warrant for Jeffries and found her in direct criminal contempt of court.
- The Circuit Court sentenced Jeffries to seventy-two hours in the Washington County Jail.
- Jeffries appealed her criminal contempt conviction to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's order prohibiting a reporter from publishing lawfully obtained information, specifically details of a juvenile record discussed in open court, constitute a valid basis for a criminal contempt conviction when the reporter was not afforded the procedural safeguards for constructive contempt and the order was a presumptively invalid prior restraint on speech?
Opinions:
Majority - mills, justice
No, a trial court's order prohibiting a reporter from publishing lawfully obtained information from an open court proceeding does not constitute a valid basis for a criminal contempt conviction because the conviction was for direct contempt despite the act being constructive contempt, the procedural safeguards for constructive contempt were not followed, and the order itself was a presumptively invalid prior restraint on speech. The Supreme Court first clarified that Jeffries's act of publishing an article outside the court's presence was constructive contempt, not direct contempt, which is reserved for words or actions committed in the court's presence that embarrass or obstruct justice. For constructive contempt, Mississippi law (citing Purvis v. Purvis and Evers v. State) requires specific procedural safeguards: a specific charge, notice, and a hearing, which Jeffries was not afforded. Furthermore, the court found the judge's order to be a prior restraint on speech, which is presumptively invalid under the First Amendment (citing Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart) and the Mississippi Constitution. To overcome this presumption, a court must apply a three-part test: (1) whether the publication would result in damage to a 'near sacred right,' (2) whether the prior restraint would be effective, and (3) whether less extreme measures were available. The trial judge failed to make these necessary determinations. Applying the test, the Supreme Court determined that obedience to the order would have damaged Jeffries's freedom of speech, the restraint's effectiveness was questionable given others in the audience were not bound to privacy, and less extreme measures (e.g., private review of the record) were available to the judge. The Court emphasized that information obtained legally from a public proceeding cannot generally be restrained from publication, even if statutes prohibit dissemination of the same information when not publicly available (citing The Florida Star v. B.J.F., Oklahoma Publ'g Co. v. District Court, and Craig v. Harney), because a trial is a public event and what transpires in the courtroom is public property.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the protection against prior restraints on journalistic speech, especially concerning information lawfully obtained from public judicial proceedings. It clearly delineates the procedural requirements for constructive contempt, reinforcing that due process rights must be fully respected even when a court believes its orders have been violated. The decision underscores the judiciary's limited power to censor or suppress information from open court, making it a crucial precedent for press freedom and transparency in the judicial system. It sets a high bar for courts seeking to impose gag orders on the press regarding publicly revealed information.
