People v. Bryant
2004 WL 1613774, 94 P.3d 624 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A narrowly tailored prior restraint on the publication of inadvertently disclosed, confidential in camera rape shield hearing transcripts is constitutional if the state can demonstrate an interest of the highest order, the restraint is the narrowest available, and it is necessary to prevent great and certain harm to that interest that cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures, especially when the information is intensely private and not yet broadly disseminated to the public by the state.
Facts:
- On June 30, 2003, Kobe B. Bryant was accused of committing forcible sexual penetration of a woman in Eagle County, Colorado.
- The District Court had previously issued an order on October 31, 2003, prohibiting court personnel from disclosing non-public information relating to the pending criminal case.
- The District Court held in camera (closed) proceedings on June 21 and 22, 2004, to determine the relevancy and materiality of evidence concerning the alleged victim's prior or subsequent sexual conduct, as mandated by Colorado's rape shield statute.
- On June 24, 2004, a court reporter mistakenly sent the transcripts of these in camera proceedings by electronic transmission to seven media entities (Recipients) who subscribed to public proceeding transcripts, instead of using a restricted list for confidential materials.
- The mistakenly transmitted transcripts were clearly marked with " IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS " on every page and contained information about the victim's sexual conduct before and after her encounter with Defendant Bryant.
- The court reporter immediately notified the District Court upon discovering the error, and the District Court promptly issued an order to the Recipients.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Colorado filed a Complaint/Information against Kobe B. Bryant on July 18, 2003, in the Eagle County District Court, alleging forcible sexual penetration (a Class 3 felony).
- The District Court for Eagle County held in camera proceedings on June 21 and 22, 2004, to consider evidence under Colorado's rape shield statute.
- On June 24, 2004, upon discovering that in camera transcripts had been erroneously distributed to media entities, the District Court promptly issued an order commanding all recipients to delete and destroy any copies and not reveal any contents thereof, under penalty of contempt.
- Four days later, on June 28, 2004, the seven media entities (Recipients) filed an original proceeding petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado, seeking review of the District Court's order and asking that it be set aside as an unconstitutional prior restraint.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado exercised its original jurisdiction on June 29, 2004, and ordered expedited briefing from the Recipients (petitioners), the Colorado Attorney General (on behalf of the District Court), and the District Attorney for Eagle County (respondents).
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 court order prohibiting media entities from publishing the contents of confidential in camera rape shield hearing transcripts, which were mistakenly transmitted to them by court personnel, constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hobbs
Yes, a narrowly tailored prior restraint on the publication of the mistakenly transmitted in camera rape shield transcripts is constitutional. The court acknowledges that the District Court's order is a prior restraint, which carries a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. However, the state has an "interest of the highest order" in maintaining the confidentiality of rape shield proceedings, as they are crucial for protecting victims' privacy, encouraging the reporting of sexual assaults, and facilitating the prosecution and deterrence of such crimes. The court distinguished this case from others where prior restraints were struck down, noting that the information was not made publicly available by the state, was clearly marked confidential, and involved intensely private, sworn testimony not yet determined to be relevant or admissible at trial. The potential harm from publication – including destroying the victim's privacy, deterring future reporting, and undermining the efficacy of the rape shield statute – was deemed "great and certain." The court concluded that such an order was necessary and, while striking the requirement for recipients to delete and destroy copies, directed the District Court to expedite its relevancy determinations and potentially release a redacted version of the transcripts, maintaining the confidentiality of irrelevant and immaterial portions.
Dissenting - Justice Bender
No, the prior restraint imposed by the District Court is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Justice Bender argues that the majority overemphasizes the state interest and ignores the First Amendment guarantee of press freedom, especially when truthful information of public importance is lawfully obtained. Most of the private details of the alleged victim's sexual conduct, which are the subject of the confidential hearings, are already available through public court documents and other media reports, meaning the harm the rape shield statute aims to prevent has largely already occurred. The dissent stresses that the media did nothing wrong in obtaining the transcripts, and the government's failure to maintain the confidentiality of its own information cannot be remedied by censoring the press. Such an order allows the court, rather than the media, to determine what can be published, a power expressly forbidden by the First Amendment, unless the need for secrecy is "manifestly overwhelming," which is not present here.
Analysis:
This case represents a rare instance where a prior restraint on publication was upheld, albeit in a narrowed form, demonstrating the Colorado Supreme Court's strong commitment to protecting victim privacy in sexual assault cases through the rape shield statute. It distinguishes itself from prior U.S. Supreme Court cases that rejected prior restraints or post-publication sanctions by emphasizing the in camera nature of the proceeding, the intensely private content, the accidental nature of the disclosure, and the fact that the information had not yet entered the broad public domain via the state's deliberate action. The ruling suggests a nuanced approach where confidential, highly sensitive information, inadvertently disclosed but not widely disseminated, may warrant temporary publication restrictions, especially when directly linked to the core purpose of a statute designed to protect fundamental rights like victim privacy. This could impact future cases involving leaks of confidential court materials, particularly where privacy interests are paramount and the state can prove 'great and certain harm' from publication.
