Sarasota Herald-Tribune v. State
924 So. 2d 8 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statutory exemptions that make autopsy photographs or criminal investigation records confidential do not apply to such records once they have been admitted into evidence in open court. Any subsequent restriction on public access to admitted evidence must satisfy the strict constitutional test for closing judicial proceedings, ensuring the restriction is narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to protect a compelling interest.
Facts:
- Joseph P. Smith was indicted for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a young girl, Carlie Brucia, on February 1, 2004.
- During Smith's criminal trial, the State introduced numerous crime scene photographs, crime scene videotapes, and autopsy photographs into evidence.
- These exhibits, which were shown to the jury, were described as disturbing.
- Several media organizations (The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Tampa Tribune, WFLA-TV, and The Herald) sought permission to view and inspect these specific exhibits that had been formally admitted into evidence.
- The trial court allowed the jury to see the exhibits but concealed them from all members of the public and the press present in the courtroom.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida indicted Joseph P. Smith for kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the state trial court.
- During the trial, the trial court orally ruled that it would bar all press and public access to certain crime scene and autopsy photographs and videotapes that had been introduced into evidence.
- The Media (a group of news organizations) filed a petition in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, seeking expedited review of the order excluding the press.
- The appellate court directed the trial court to render a formal written order, which was entered on November 17, 2005, memorializing the ban on access.
- The State and Smith, as respondents, filed responses in the appellate court supporting the trial court's order.
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 order that bars the press from viewing crime scene and autopsy photographs after they have been admitted into evidence in a public criminal trial violate the constitutional right of public access to judicial proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Altenbernd, J.
Yes, the trial court order violates the constitutional right of public access. A trial court order barring the press from viewing evidence admitted in open court violates the constitutional right of public access when it is based on statutory public records exemptions that no longer apply. Once evidence is admitted in a public trial, it becomes part of the judicial record, and any restriction on access must be justified by a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored. The court reasoned that Florida Statutes § 406.135, which makes autopsy photos held by a medical examiner confidential, is inapplicable because once admitted as evidence, the photos are in the custody of the clerk of court. Similarly, Chapter 119 exemptions for criminal investigative information revealing a victim's identity are inapplicable when the victim's identity is already widely known. The proper framework is Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, which allows for confidentiality to avoid injury to innocent third parties but requires that any restriction be no broader than necessary. A total ban on viewing is not narrowly tailored when less restrictive measures, such as allowing professional journalists to view the exhibits without copying or publishing them, are available to protect both the family's privacy and the public's right to an open trial.
Concurring - Casanueva, J.
I agree that the trial court's order violates the constitutional right of public access. The trial court's order barring access and publication is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Beyond the statutory analysis, fundamental First Amendment principles protect the media's right to access and report on what transpires in an open courtroom. This access serves as an essential check on the judicial system. The trial court's order suppressing the evidence from media view and prohibiting its publication constitutes a prior restraint, which is heavily disfavored under constitutional law. The public property interest in courtroom proceedings and the media's role in ensuring judicial integrity provide additional, independent constitutional grounds for granting the media access to the challenged exhibits.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between records held by executive agencies (like police or medical examiners) and records admitted into evidence in court. It establishes that the act of admitting a record into evidence transforms its legal status, stripping it of statutory public records exemptions and subjecting it to the higher constitutional standard for openness in judicial proceedings. The ruling reinforces the strong presumption of public access to all parts of a criminal trial, including physical evidence. It instructs lower courts that while the privacy interests of victims' families are a valid concern, they cannot justify a complete bar on access if less restrictive alternatives, such as supervised viewing by the press, exist.
Unlock the full brief for Sarasota Herald-Tribune v. State