Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia

Supreme Court of United States
448 U.S. 555 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, implicitly guarantees the right of the public and the press to attend criminal trials. This right is not absolute but can only be overcome by an overriding interest articulated in specific judicial findings.

Facts:

In March 1976, one Stevenson was indicted for the murder of a hotel manager in Hanover County, Virginia.
Stevenson's first trial resulted in a conviction that was later reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court.
A second trial in May 1978 and a third trial in June 1978 both ended in mistrials.
A fourth trial for Stevenson began on September 11, 1978, with reporters Wheeler and McCarthy of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. present.
Before the fourth trial began, Stevenson's counsel moved to close the trial to the public, citing concern that information might be passed to jurors during recesses.
The prosecutor stated no objection to the closure motion.
The trial judge, citing a Virginia statute, granted the motion and ordered the courtroom cleared of all parties except for witnesses during their testimony.

Procedural Posture:

After the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. moved to vacate the order.
The trial judge held a closed hearing on the motion and subsequently denied it.
The trial continued in private, concluding with a verdict of not guilty for the defendant, Stevenson.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. filed a petition for appeal and for writs of mandamus and prohibition with the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and denied the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial court's closure order.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, treating the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari, granted the petition.

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 the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantee the public and press a right to attend criminal trials?

Opinions:

Majority - Burger, C.J.

Yes. The right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court found that the historical evidence of open trials in both England and the American colonies is overwhelming and demonstrates that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice. This long-held tradition serves critical functions, including ensuring fairness, discouraging perjury, providing a therapeutic outlet for community concern, and fostering public confidence in the justice system. The First Amendment's explicit guarantees of speech, press, and assembly share a common purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters of government functioning, which includes the administration of justice. This creates an implicit right of access, as the explicit rights would be diminished without the freedom to observe the trial process. The trial judge in this case erred by closing the court without any findings to support an overriding interest and without considering less restrictive alternatives.

Concurring - White, J.

Yes. While this case should have been resolved under the Sixth Amendment as argued in the Gannett dissent, the Court's rejection of that view requires the First Amendment issue to be addressed. On that issue, the Chief Justice's opinion is correct.

Concurring - Stevens, J.

Yes. This is a watershed case because it is the first time the Court has unequivocally held that the acquisition of newsworthy information is entitled to constitutional protection. An arbitrary interference with access to important information, such as a criminal trial, is an abridgment of the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment. Given the total absence of any record justification for the closure order, it was a clear constitutional violation.

Concurring - Brennan, J.

Yes. The First Amendment has a structural role in securing self-government, which requires that public debate be informed. A right of access to a government process is determined by weighing historical tradition and the specific value of access to that process. Here, the tradition of open trials is unbroken, and public access serves vital purposes: it ensures the appearance of justice, acts as a check on judicial power, and facilitates accurate fact-finding. The Virginia statute, which allows closure at the unfettered discretion of the judge and parties, is unconstitutional.

Concurring - Stewart, J.

Yes. Whatever the answer is for pretrial hearings, the First and Fourteenth Amendments clearly give the press and the public a right of access to trials themselves. A trial courtroom is a public place where public presence serves to assure the integrity of the proceedings. This right is not absolute and may be limited by a judge to ensure a fair trial, but the judge here gave no recognition to this fundamental right of access, requiring reversal.

Dissenting - Rehnquist, J.

No. Neither the First, Sixth, Ninth, nor any other Amendment prohibits a state from closing a trial where the prosecutor, defendant, and judge all agree to the closure. The Court oversteps its authority by imposing federal judicial oversight on the administration of state court systems, thereby smothering a healthy pluralism that should exist under our system of federalism. The Constitution does not confer upon the Supreme Court the power to review and reverse such decisions by state trial judges.

Analysis:

This landmark decision established a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, distinguishing it from the Sixth Amendment context of pretrial hearings addressed in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale. The ruling affirmed that the First Amendment protects not only the right to disseminate information but also the right to gather it in places traditionally open to the public. It created a strong presumption of openness for criminal trials, placing the burden on the party seeking closure to demonstrate an overriding interest that cannot be protected by less restrictive means. This case has served as the foundation for subsequent rulings extending the public's right of access to other stages of the judicial process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"