No. 79-93
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1980
T E GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,
H
Petitioner,
-vs-
T E DISTRICT COURT O THE EIGHTH
H F
JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA,
F F
et a l . ,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel o f Record:
For P e t i t i o n e r :
Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and M a t t e u c c i , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
R a n d a l l Swanberg a r g u e d , Great F a l l s , Montana
For Respondents:
J . F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana
R o b e r t J. V e r m i l l i o n a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
J u d g e H. W i l l i a m Coder a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
D a n i e l Donovan a r g u e d , M m - - ' vc ,
L - Great
F a l l s , Montana
James A. Lewis a r g u e d ,W- r )e t
- -+~j ~ , Great
F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1980
Decided : #m? 1 9 E@b
Filed :
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
The question before this Court is whether the District
Court's order closing to the press and public the individual voir
dire examination of prospective jurors in a criminal case should
be affirmed under the circumstances of this case. Our order of
January 18, 1980,vacated the closure and directed that the press
and public be permitted to attend the voir dire examination with
a written opinion to follow. This opinion constitutes the reasons
for our decision.
Gene Andrew Austad was charged with two counts of deliberate
homicide, robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, and aggra-
vated burglary allegedly committed on April 21, 1978.
His preliminary hearing could not be held until September
18, 1978, because of injuries he sustained in an accident follow-
ing the crimes with which he was charged. Shortly after the al-
leged and as yet undiscovered crimes with which he was later charged,
Austad was stopped by Great Falls police for a traffic violation,
fled the scene of the traffic stop, and a high speed chase ensued
culminating in a wreck in which he was severely injured. Follow-
ing the wreck, authorities discovered evidence of the commission
of other offenses which led to the discovery of the body of Mabel
Wald, age 69, the victim of the crimes of which Austad was charged.
Following the preliminary hearing, Austad was bound over
to the District Court of Cascade County. On October 18, 1978,
the District Court denied his motion for an order controlling
alleged prejudicial publicity.
Austad was arraigned on December 27, remained silent, and
a not guilty plea to all charges was entered in his behalf.
In February, 1979, Austad was released from the hospital.
His bail was reduced permitting him to be taken to the home of
his parents to be given the personal care required by his condition.
On May 31 the defendant filed a motion for change of
place of trial. On June 1 he moved for sequestration of prospec-
tive jurors during voir dire examination and during trial. On
June 4 defendant moved for individual voir dire examination of
prospective jurors.
On ~ u g u s t24 following a psychiatric and medical examin-
ation of defendant to determine his fitness to proceed, an in
camera hearing was held by the District Court in its chambers to
determine defendant's fitness to proceed to trial, his ability to
assist and communicate with his counsel, and the extent to which
the State's evidence could be reconstructed.
On October 2 the District Court found that defendant's
physical condition made it possible for him to proceed to trial
with certain limitations and set a trial date of November 20.
On October 15 defendant moved to close pretrial proceed-
ings.
On November 1, following a hearing closed to the press
and public, the District Court entered orders denying defendant's
motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct and granting defen-
dant's motion to close pretrial proceedings calendered for October
29 to the press and public.
The trial was continued to December 3 at which time an
initial panel of 50 prospective jurors were sworn. At the com-
mencement of voir dire examination, the District Court directed
that the individual voir dire examination of prospective jurors
be closed to the press and public.
On December 14, the Great Falls Tribune filed an original
proceeding in this Court seeking a writ of supervisory control
(1) directing the presiding judge to permit a Tribune reporter to
attend and observe the voir dire examination of prospective jurors,
and (2) directing the presiding judge to hold a hearing and there-
after issue findings of fact and conclusions of law showing that
defendant's right to a fair trial was jeopardized.
On the same date this Court issued an order directing
the presiding judge to hold a hearing and submit to us his
findings and conclusions concerning his reasons for closing the
voir dire examination to the press and public and staying further
proceedings in jury selection.
On January 10, 1980 following hearing, the presiding judge
filed his findings, conclusions and order closing the voir dire
examination to the press and public. In summary, the presiding
judge concluded that such closure was required to ensure the right
of the defendant to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury in
Cascade County. The closure was based upon findings of sub-
stantial prejudicial publicity, misstatements of fact, disclosure
of defendant's prior criminal record, and disclosure of evidence
not generally known to the public originating in part from the
prosecution and police appearing in the Tribune. The presiding
judge examined certain alternatives to closure--sequestration of
prospective jurors, change of venue, and continuance of trial to
a later date--and re.jected each for various reasons.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding which
we denied. Briefs were filed by defendant, the State and the
Tribune. Oral argument was heard on January 18. Thereafter this
Court entered an order vacating the closure with a full written
opinion to follow as time permitted.
We do not have a transcript of the District Court hearing
as time would not permit its preparation prior to hearing. How-
ever, we do have 92 exhibits filed by the Tribune and defendant
relating to press coverage including news items in the Tribune,
letters to the editor printed in the Tribune, and scripts of radio-
television broadcasts. They cover the time period from April 23,
1978 to December 14, 1979. In short, they depict a murder in which
a 29 year old defendant is alleged to have raped a 69 year old
victim, cut her throat, and stuck a knife in her chest; his
fleeing from police in an automobile chase at speeds up to 89
miles per hour after being stopped for a routine traffic inves-
tigation; and repokting subsequent events in the criminal prose-
cution with republication of events leading to defendant's arrest
and the charges filed.
At the outset we observe the existence of a common law
rule of open civil and criminal proceedings in the courts of this
country. Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale (1979), U.S. I
99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L Ed 2d 608 and authorities cited therein.
The public and the press have "traditionally had access to criminal
proceedings and history supports the notion that public trials
are the norm." Rapid City Journal Company v. Circuit Court (1979),
S.D. , 283 N.W.2d 563; Gannett v. DePasquale, supra, and
cases cited therein.
We additionally note that the United States Supreme Court
has ruled that the Federal Constitution does not require that a
pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress evidence be open to the
public and that the press has no federal constitutional right of
access to such a proceeding. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra.
However, the situation is considerably different under
the Constitution of this State. Article 11, Section 9 of the 1972
Montana Constitution provides:
"Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be
deprived of the right to examine documents or to
observe the deliberations of all public bodies-
or agencies of state government and its subdi-
visions, except in cases in which the demand of
individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of
public disclosure." (Emphasis added.)
The language of this provision speaks for itself. It applies to
all persons and all public bodies of the state and its subdivi-
sions without exception. Under such circumstances, it is our duty
to interpret the intent of the framers from the language of the
provision alone and not to resort to extrinsic aids or rules of
construction in determining the intent of the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention. Keller v. Smith (1976), 170 Mont.
399, 404, 554 P.2d 1002; Cashmere v. Anderson (1972), 160 Mont.
175, 500 P.2d 921, cert.den. 410 U.S. 931, 93 S.Ct. 1372, 35
L Ed 2d 593; Vaughn & Ragsdale Co. v. State Board of Equal. (1932),
109 Mont. 52, 96 P.2d 420; Sections 1-2-102 and 1-4-103, MCA.
Art. 11, Sec. 9 clearly provides that any person has the consti-
tutional right to observe court proceedings unless the demand of
individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.
The merits of public access to criminal proceedings are
many and substantial. It protects the accused from "secret in-
quisitional techniques" and unjust persecution by public officials
and "goes far toward insuring him a fair trial, to which he is
entitled." Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Leggett (1979),
423 NYS2d 630, and cases cited therein. It promotes justice for
the accuser as well--the police and prosecutors who must enforce
the law and the victims of crime who suffer when the law is not
enforced fairly, impartially and vigorously. Westchester Richland
Newspaper, supra. Open public proceedings have long been recog-
nized as a cornerstone in preserving the quality and integrity
of the judicial process. Rapid City Journal Co. v Circuit Court,
.
supra. Closure of judicial proceedings breeds suspicion and mis-
trust in the minds of the public and respresentatives of the media.
Such closure is simply censorship at the source--a denial of the
right to know. Frequently it is counterproductive; it focuses
public attention on the accused and the crime by generating publicity
which neither would otherwise merit.
However, this right of access or right to know is not ab-
solute. Our Montana Constitution provides an exception in cases
where the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits
of public disclosure. It also guarantees the defendant the right
to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. Art. 11, Sec. 24,
1972 Montana Constitution. A balancing of these competing rights
is required.
We proceed to analyze this case in this context. We
have examined the 92 exhibits of pretrial media coverage. We note
that the Tribune has published and republished the background of
the case--that defendant is charged with raping and murdering the
69 year old victim, cutting her throat, sticking a knife in her
chest and subsequently being apprehended by police after a high
speed chase. Television and radio broadcasts are of the same
tenor. In our view these items are factual reporting without
editorializing and are no more inflammatory than background in-
formation on any other brutal crime. One article appeared in the
Tribune tending to link defendant with a house burglary five years
earlier. This article appeared five to six days after the crime
and one and a half years before jury selection. The District Court
found that the news articles contained misstatements of fact giv-
ing as an example the implication that the high speed chase by
police resulted from defendant's fleeing the scene of the crimes
rather than fleeing from a routine traffic investigation.
We find nothing in the news articles, in the scripts of
radio and television broadcasts, or in subjecting the prospective
jurors to an open and public voir dire examination that would deny
or impair defendant's right to a speedy public trial by an impartial
jury under Federal and State Constitutional guarantees. No con-
tention is made that the publicity in this case was massive or
pervading to the extent of exerting an influence upon jurors to
insure a conviction as in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), 384 U.S. 333,
86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L Ed 2d 600 or Estes v. Texas (1965), 381 U.S.
532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L Ed 2d 543.
In the modern world it is impossible to create an arti-
ficial, antiseptic environment from which prospective jurors may
be drawn who have heard nothing of a serious crime committed in
their midst. People read newspapers. They listen to radio and
television newscasts. It is only where they form fixed opinions
on the guilt or innocence of the defendant which they would not
be able to lay aside and render a verdict based solely on the
evidence presented in court that they become disqualified as
jurors. Irvin v Dowd (1961), 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639,
.
1642, 6 L Ed 2d 751, 756; State v. Lewis (1976), 169 Mont. 290,
546 P.2d 518. A probing voir dire examination of prospective
jurors is the judicial mechanism for determining this. The pur-
pose of voir dire in a criminal proceeding is to determine the
existence of bias and prejudice on the part of prospective jurors
and to enable counsel to intelligently exercise his peremptory
challenges. State v. Stuit (1978), Mont . , 576 P.2d 264,
35 St-Rep. 313. In this case separate, segregated and individual
voir dire of prospective jurors was ordered by the Court, but we
fail to see just how closing such examination to the public is nec-
essary to guarantee the defendant a fair trial. If during the course
of voir dire it should become necessary to allude to inadmissible
evidence or similar matters, the presiding judge could briefly close
the voir dire for those questions and answers alone, an alternative
not considered by the court in this case.
From the foregoing it is apparent that the Montana Consti-
tution imposes a stricter standard in order to authorize closure
than does the United States Constitution. Art. 11, Sec. 9 of the
Montana Constitution has no counterpart in the Federal Constitution.
In Gannett the United States Supreme Court left open the question
of whether a stricter state constitutional standard is permissible
under the Federal Constitution.
" . .. But we are not asked here to declare
whether open proceedings represent beneficial
social policy, or whether there would be a con-
stitutional barrier to a state law that imposed
a stricter standard of closure than the one here
employed by the New York count .. ." U.S.
at , 99 S.Ct. at 2912-2913, 61 L ~ d 2 d a t630.
We note that Gannett is distinguishable from the present
case. Gannett involved closure of a pretrial suppression hearing;
this case involves closure of the entire voir dire examination
of all prospective jurors. In our view pretrial suppression hear-
ings involve a special risk, i.e. disclosure of tainted evidence.
Although it is not entirely clear, there is reason to believe that
the holding in Gannett may not be applicable to closure of the
trial itself. Here the voir dire examination is an integral part
of the trial itself. See Commercial Printing Co. v. Lee (Ark. 1977),
553 S.W.2d 270; 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law S260; United States v.
Woods (3rd Cir. 1966), 364 F.2d 481. Closing any part of the trial
is simply the first step down that primrose path that leads to
destruction of those societal values that open, public trials pro-
mote. Nothing short of strict and irreparabze necessity to ensure
defendant's right to a fair trial should suffice.
These are the reasons for our order of January 18, 1980,
vacating the closure of the voir dire examination and directing
that the press and public be permitted to attend.
Chief Justice
Mr. J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy d i s s e n t i n g :
On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1980, t h e m a j o r i t y of t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d
i t s p e r curiam o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t o proceed f o r t h w i t h with v o i r d i r e examination of prospec-
t i v e t r i a l j u r o r s i n t h e c r i m i n a l c a s e a g a i n s t Gene Andrew
Austad, and v a c a t i n g a n e a r l i e r o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t h a t t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c be e x c l u d e d from s u c h v o i r d i r e
examination.
W d i s s e n t e d t o t h a t o r d e r and now s t a t e o u r r e a s o n s .
e
W e have no t e s t i m o n i a l r e c o r d b e f o r e u s i n t h i s case.
Such f a c t s a s may be r e c i t e d h e r e a r e g l e a n e d from t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e r e s p o n s e s t h e r e t o , and t h e
e x h i b i t s which have been f i l e d . What w e s a y h e r e r e s p e c t i n g
t h e p u r p o r t e d f a c t s i s n o t t o be c o n s t r u e d i n any p r e s e n t o r
f u t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s a s a n i n d i c a t i o n by u s t h a t we have
p r e j u d g e d what t h e f a c t s may e v e n t u a l l y t u r n o u t t o be.
On A p r i l 27, 1978, a n i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County,
a g a i n s t Gene Andrew Austad. H e was c h a r g e d w i t h f i v e
f e l o n i e s , a l l e g e d t o have been committed on A p r i l 2 1 , 1978
i n G r e a t F a l l s , i n c l u d i n g two c o u n t s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide,
and one e a c h of r o b b e r y , s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t ,
and a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l a r y .
I n t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of A p r i l 2 2 , 1978, Austad
s u f f e r e d s e v e r e i n j u r i e s t o h i s p e r s o n a s a r e s u l t of a n
a c c i d e n t i n o r n e a r G r e a t F a l l s , which o c c u r r e d w h i l e ust tad
was engaged i n a high-speed c h a s e between a n a u t o m o b i l e h e
was d r i v i n g and one o p e r a t e d by t h e G r e a t F a l l s p o l i c e . He
had been s t o p p e d f o r a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
a t t e m p t e d t o l e a v e t h e s c e n e , and t h e c h a s e e n s u e d , ~ollow-
i n g t h e a c c i d e n t i n which Austad w a s i n j u r e d , t h e a u t h o r i t i e s
d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e of t h e commission o f a n o t h e r o f f e n s e ,
and t h e s u b s e q u e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s p o s s i b l e o f f e n s e
led t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e body o f Mabel Wald t h e n aged
69, t h e v i c t i m of t h e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d a g a i n s t Austad i n t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n above d e t a i l e d .
Because of t h e i n j u r i e s which Austad r e c e i v e d i n t h e
a c c i d e n t , h e was h o s p i t a l i z e d i n Great F a l l s . H i s condition
was such t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g i n t h e c r i m i n a l c a s e
a g a i n s t him was n o t had u n t i l September 1 8 , 1978. On
October 4 , 1978, t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h r o u g h h i s c o u n s e l from t h e
p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s o f f i c e f i l e d a motion f o r a n o r d e r t o
control prejudicial publicity. T h a t motion w a s d e n i e d by
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on October 1 8 , 1978, t h e c o u r t t h e n
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p r e t r i a l c o v e r a g e by t h e p r e s s had n o t
prejudiced t h e defendant.
Austad was a r r a i g n e d on December 27, 1978, remained
s i l e n t , and t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d h i s p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o a l l
of t h e c h a r g e s . S i n c e t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e p h y s i -
c a l f i t n e s s of t h e a c c u s e d t o p r o c e e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
d i r e c t e d h i s p s y c h i a t r i c and m e d i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n .
I n e a r l y F e b r u a r y , 1979, Austad w a s r e l e a s e d from t h e
hospital. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t reduced h i s b a i l s o t h a t he
c o u l d be t a k e n t o t h e home of h i s p a r e n t s and be g i v e n t h e
p e r s o n a l c a r e r e q u i r e d by h i s t h e n p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n .
On May 31, 1979, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion f o r change of
p l a c e of t r i a l . On J u n e 1, 1979, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion
f o r t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n of j u r o r s during v o i r d i r e examination
and d u r i n g t r i a l . On J u n e 4 , 1979, t h e d e f e n d a n t moved f o r
i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s ,
which l a t t e r motion w a s g r a n t e d by t h e c o u r t .
On J u l y 9 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d memoranda
from a l l p a r t i e s and from t h e S t a t e and d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l
t o a d v i s e him on t h e q u e s t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s f i t n e s s t o
p r o c e e d r e l a t i n g t o t h e i s s u e s of h i s a b i l i t y t o be o f
a s s i s t a n c e t o h i s c o u n s e l and t o communicate w i t h him; t h e
e x t e n t t o which t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e c o u l d be r e c o n s t r u c t e d ,
not only a s t o t h e offense i t s e l f , but a s t o the p o s s i b i l i t y
of t h e d e f e n s e of a l i b i ; and f o r any f u r t h e r comment on t h e
p s y c h i a t r i c , m e d i c a l and n e u r o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s which t h e
c o u r t had r e c e i v e d . A h e a r i n g on t h i s o r d e r was h e l d on
August 2 4 , 1979 i n chambers b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i n camera. 7
On October 2 , 1979, t h e c o u r t made f i n d i n g s d e t e r m i n i n g
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n made i t p o s s i b l e f o r
him t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l w i t h c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s , and o r d e r e d
j u r y t r i a l t o commence on November 26, 1979. He f u r t h e r s e t
a l l pending motions f o r d e c i s i o n on October 29, 1979. On
October 1 5 , 1979, Austad moved t o c l o s e t h e p r e t r i a l pro-
ceedings.
On October 29, 1979, t h e h e a r i n g was c l o s e d t o t h e
p r e s s and p u b l i c , and t h e r e a f t e r , on November 1, 1979, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r s :
(a) Denied A u s t a d ' s motion f o r f u n d s t o h i r e a p r o f e s -
s i o n a l s u r v e y team t o c o n d u c t a t e l e p h o n e s u r v e y i n Great
F a l l s r e g a r d i n g t h e Gene Austad c a s e .
(b) Denied v a r i o u s motions of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d i s m i s s
on grounds o f misconduct of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n .
(c) Granted d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c l o s e p r o c e e d i n g s t o
t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c .
The j u r y t r i a l d a t e was c o n t i n u e d t o December 3 , 1979
and on t h a t d a t e , a n i n i t i a l p a n e l of 50 j u r o r s were sworn.
The c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e p r o s p e c t i v e
j u r o r s would be i n d i v i d u a l , and t h e n r e l e a s e d t h e j u r y p a n e l
u n t i l f u r t h e r c a l l of t h e c o u r t .
On December 4 , 1979, a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of v o i r d i r e , t h e
c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of
t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s be c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c and t h e
press.
On December 1 4 , 1979, t h e G r e a t F a l l s T r i b u n e f i l e d
with t h i s Court a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l
d i r e c t i n g t h e Honorable H. William Coder t o p e r m i t a T r i b u n e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o a t t e n d t h e v o i r d i r e proceeding, o r i n t h e
a l t e r n a t i v e , t o h o l d a h e a r i n g and e n t e r f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u -
s i o n s which would show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a f a i r
t r i a l was j e o p a r d i z e d .
When t h e T r i b u n e f i l e d i t s p e t i t i o n , v o i r d i r e examina-
t i o n of t h e j u r o r s i n t h e Austad t r i a l was t h e n under way.
On t h e same d a t e a s t h e p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d , w e i s s u e d a n
o r d e r s t a y i n g a l l f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e Austad t r i a l ,
and d i r e c t e d Judge Coder t o h o l d a h e a r i n g and t o s u b m i t t o
u s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w a s t o h i s r e a s o n s
f o r c l o s i n g t h e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c .
The h e a r i n g h a s been p r o v i d e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . On
J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e d i t s f i n d i n g s of
f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r . I n summary, Judge
Coder concluded t h a t t h e r i g h t of t h e a c c u s e d , Austad,
t o a speedy p u b l i c t r i a l by a n i m p a r t i a l j u r y i n Cascade
County r e q u i r e d i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e
p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s c l o s e d t o t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c u n t i l s u c h
t i m e a s t h e j u r o r s and a l t e r n a t e s a r e d u l y sworn and empaneled.
Counsel f o r Austad f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e s e
p r o c e e d i n g s on December 1 8 , 1979. The T r i b u n e f i l e d i t s
o b j e c t i o n t o s a i d motion. The Cascade County A t t o r n e y h a s
a l s o f i l e d a brief i n t h i s matter. W o r d e r e d o r a l argument
e
on t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law s u b m i t t e d by
t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t o be h e l d b e f o r e u s on J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1980.
t
he p o s i t i o n of t h e T r i b u n e had n o t been changed, t h a t
no r e a s o n e x i s t e d f o r t h e e x c l u s i o n of t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c
from t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i n
the criminal t r i a l . The p o s i t i o n of t h e County A t t o r n e y i s
t h a t h e would n o t a t t a c k t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t judge and
s o h e t o o k no p o s i t i o n p r o o r con a s t o t h e o r d e r . The
p o s i t i o n of c o u n s e l f o r Austad, w h i l e s u p p o r t i v e of t h e
d i s t r i c t judge, i n d i c a t e s r a t h e r s t r o n g l y t h a t t h e y would
p r e f e r t h a t t h e t r i a l of Austad be moved t o a n o t h e r c o u n t y .
Judge Coder h i m s e l f , a s a named r e s p o n d e n t i n t h i s a c t i o n ,
a p p e a r e d and a r g u e d i n s u p p o r t of t h e o r d e r t h a t he i s s u e d .
The f o r e g o i n g r e c a p i t u l a t i o n summarizes t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
had i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t t h a t l e d t o o u r
o r d e r of J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1980 v a c a t i n g t h e c l o s u r e s t r i c t u r e
imposed by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
W e b e l i e v e from t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e u s t h a t Gene
Andrew Austad, a g e 29 a t t h e t i m e of t h e c r i m e s c h a r g e d
a g a i n s t him, i s a Great F a l l s r e s i d e n t who i s s e v e r e l y
physically incapacitated. H e s u s t a i n e d closed-head i n j u r i e s
which have r e s u l t e d i n r e t r o g r a d e and a n t e r o g r a d e amnesia
which i s permanent; d y s a r t h i a , t h a t i s d i f f i c u l t y w i t h
s p e e c h due t o t h e weakness of h i s v o i c e m u s c l e s ; d o u b l e
v i s i o n ; s p a s t i c q u a d r a p a r e s i s , which n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e u s e of
a w h e e l c h a i r a l t h o u g h he i s a b l e t o s t a n d and walk very s h o r t
d i s t a n c e s w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e of two a i d e s ; and a m i l d
d e g r e e of d i f f u s e c e r e b r a l d y s f u n c t i o n . The ~ i s t r i c C o u r t
t
found t h a t i n s p i t e of h i s amnesia, which r e l a t e s p a r t i c u -
l a r l y t o t h e i n c i d e n t s i n v o l v i n g t h e crimes c h a r g e d , he i s
nevertheless mentally a b l e t o attend t r i a l . H e communi-
c a t e s i n some d e g r e e w i t h h i s c o u n s e l s o t h a t he i s a b l e t o
a i d i n h i s own d e f e n s e ; b u t h i s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i s such
t h a t he would n o t b e a b l e t o be p r e s e n t i n t h e courtroom f o r
a n e n t i r e day. T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l i s s c h e d u l e d t o be
conducted on a p a r t - d a y b a s i s and i s "programmed" f o r 8
weeks.
Defendant's counsel has f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court 92
e x h i b i t s r e l a t i n g t o p r e s s c o v e r a g e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and
his trial. They i n c l u d e news i t e m s r u n n i n g i n t h e G r e a t
F a l l s Tribune, s c r i p t s o f t e l e v i s i o n broadcasts r e l a t i n g t o
Austad, and l e t t e r s t o t h e e d i t o r p r i n t e d i n t h e T r i b u n e .
I n s h o r t , t h e y d e p i c t a murder i n which t h e 29 y e a r o l d
d e f e n d a n t i s a l l e g e d t o have r a p e d a 6 9 y e a r o l d woman, and
t h e n murdered h e r by c u t t i n g h e r t h r o a t and s t i c k i n g a
b u t c h e r k n i f e i n h e r c h e s t ; h i s f l e e i n g from t h e p o l i c e i n
t h e h i g h speed a u t o c h a s e a t s p e e d s up t o 8 9 m i l e s p e r h o u r ;
t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c h a s e when t h e Austad v e h i c l e r a n
i n t o 9 parked automobiles a t a Great F a l l s a u t o d e a l e r s h i p ;
h i s subsequent confinement t o t h e h o s p i t a l f o r s e v e r a l
months b e f o r e h e w a s a b l e t o be a r r a i g n e d . There i s no need
t o embellish those f a c t s f o r a sensational e f f e c t . Their
very r e c i t a t i o n arouses a vindictive ire i n the r e a d e r ' s
mind.
N playwright, n o t Shakespeare himself, could d e v i s e a
o
s c e n e more packed w i t h h i g h drama i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c e -
o f f than i s presented here. On t h e one hand, t h e p r e s s ,
t o w e r i n g # a n d r - majestic, robed i n t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h
Amendments. On t h e o t h e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t , cowering and p a t h e t i c ,
c r i p p l e d and c h a r g e d a s d e s p i c a b l e , u n c o m f o r t a b l e i n t h e
p o o r l y - l i g h t e d and low-heated S i x t h Amendment. In the
m i d d l e , t h e d i s t r i c t judge, f l o w e r i n g w i t h r h e t o r i c , defend-
i n g h i s r e a c h f o r a s u r g i c a l l y - c l e a n vacuum i n which t o
achieve a f a i r t r i a l . Had t h i s s e t t i n g been f i c t i o n , i t had
seemed i m p l a u s i b l e . I t i s r e a l i t y , and s t r a n g e r t h a n f i c t i o n
it h a s e s c a p e d t h e g r a s p of t h e m a j o r i t y of t h i s C o u r t .
Let us dispose a t t h e o u t s e t of t h e nonissues t h a t
cropped up i n t h i s c a s e . F i r s t , t h e v o i r d i r e examination
of p r o s p e c t i v e t r i a l j u r o r s i s a p a r t of t h e t r i a l i t s e l f .
That i s too c l e a r f o r c a v i l . I t i s announced by e v e r y t r i a l
judge i n e v e r y j u r y c a s e when a t t h e o u t s e t b e f o r e t h e j u r y
p a n e l i s sworn, h e a s k s o f t h e p a r t i e s i f t h e y a r e r e a d y f o r
trial. T h i s i s a nonissue because, as w e s h a l l demonstrate,
e v e r y U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t j u s t i c e b u t one h a s a g r e e d
t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t h a s t h e power t o c l o s e a l l o r a p a r t o f
t h e c r i m i n a l t r i a l t o t h e p u b l i c . T h a t h o l d i n g must i n c l u d e
t h e jury v o i r d i r e examination. The G r e a t F a l l s T r i b u n e
i t s e l f d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h i s power, a s o r a l argument r e v e a l e d .
The second n o n i s s u e i s whether t h e p e r v a s i v e p r e s s
s t o r i e s on t h e p u r p o r t e d f a c t s o f t h e c r i m e w e r e m i s r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n . Of c o u r s e , i f t h e p r e s s were c u l p a b l e , it would
be e a s i e r t o r u l e , b u t i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o look f o r
c u l p a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e p r e s s i n a c a s e l i k e t h i s .
T h a t i s n o t t h e i s s u e which d e t e r m i n e s whether t h e v o i r d i r e
e x a m i n a t i o n s h o u l d be c l o s e d . What must be examined i s
whether t h e f a c t s o f t h e crime a s p r i n t e d o r b r o a d c a s t , t r u e
o r f a l s e , make i t l i k e l y t h a t an i m p a r t i a l j u r y c a n n o t be
empaneled i n t h e a r e a from which a j u r y w i l l be drawn. Thus
i f t h e p r e s s had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e f a c t s , b u t t h e j u r y
p a n e l atmosphere was n o t b e f o u l e d t h e r e b y , no r i g h t would
e x i s t t o c l o s e t h e v o i r d i r e examination. Conversely, i f
t h e reported f a c t s without misrepresentation c r e a t e an
atmosphere in which a fair jury cannot be found, defendant's
right to a fair trial would require some action by the
~istrictCourt to ensure a fair trial. The permeating
overriding query remains: did the press stories prevent a
fair impartial jury? If yes, the district judge acted prop-
erly and constitutionally; if not, he acted improperly and
unconstitutionally.
The third nonissue relates to the fact that when the
District Court announced that he was closing the proceedings
to the press (as he did on a previous occasion in the same
circumstances) the reporter left the room without objection.
We would hold, and Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale (1979),
U.S. , 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608, does hold
that the lack of objection by the reporter is not binding on
the press or the publisher of the paper and properly so, for
it is not within the ostensible authority of a reporter to
waive First Amendment rights of his newspaper unless speci-
fically authorized.
Since the Great Falls Tribune has granted in oral
argument, whether one is considering the federal or the
state constitution, that a ~istrictCourt does have the
power under proper circumstances to close all or a part of
the criminal trial, the real issue of the case boils down
merely to a difference of opinion as to whether such proper
circumstances exist: the Tribune is of the opinion that its
coverage is truthful, nonsensational, and not overdone;
therefore, it cannot be excluded from voir dire examination
even if press coverage did create an unfavorable jury climate
for the defendant. The trial judge is of the opinion that
the facts have been misrepresented in the press, overempha-
sized, and unabatedly published; that the demands of the
constitution, s t a t e o r federal, f o r a f a i r t r i a l i n t h i s case
r e q u i r e two t h i n g s : (1) i n d i v i d u a l e x a m i n a t i o n of p r o s p e c -
t i v e j u r o r s o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e r e s t of t h e p a n e l ;
and, ( 2 ) e x c l u s i o n of t h e p r e s s from s u c h i n d i v i d u a l v o i r
d i r e examination t o preserve i t s s a n c t i t y .
Which o p i n i o n d o e s t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e s u p p o r t ?
C l e a r l y , t h e d i s t r i c t judge. A t l e a s t 7 0 e x h i b i t s of T r i b u n e
a r t i c l e s and t e l e v i s i o n s c r i p t s , a l l i n t h e G r e a t F a l l s
a r e a , show a r e p e a t i n g p a t t e r n of r e c i t a t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n -
d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h r a p i n g and k i l l i n g a 69 y e a r o l d woman
on A p r i l 21, 1978. Some a r t i c l e s r e p o r t h e r body w a s found
w i t h a k n i f e p r o t r u d i n g from h e r c h e s t . Others s t a t e t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t , f o l l o w i n g t h e c r i m e engaged t h e p o l i c e i n a
h i g h speed a u t o c h a s e ( i t i s on t h i s p o i n t t h a t t h e d i s -
t r i c t judge c h a r g e s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) t h a t ended when h i s
a u t o c r a s h e d and o v e r t u r n e d , i n j u r i n g him t o h i s p r e s e n t
condition. The a r t i c l e s have c o n t i n u e d u n a b a t e d l y i n t h e
p a p e r and on t e l e v i s i o n t o t h e t i m e of t h e t r i a l i t s e l f , and
even t h r o u g h t h e p e r i o d w h i l e t h e m a t t e r h a s been b e f o r e
t h i s Court. The p u b l i c a t i o n s , i n time-span, volume, and
modes o f media, exceed by f a r t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by
J u s t i c e Blackmun i n G a n n e t t . Moreover, a t t h e h e a r i n g
b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge r e q u e s t e d by t h e T r i b u n e and
g r a n t e d by u s , a p s y c h o l o g i s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l
e x a m i n a t i o n of t r i a l j u r o r s and v o i r d i r e p r e s e n t e d t h e
b e s t chance f o r h o n e s t , c a n d i d , complete answers from j u r y
candidates. O r d i n a r i l y p r e s s c o v e r a g e of such p r i v a t e i n d i -
v i d u a l e x a m i n a t i o n s would d e s t r o y t h e i r o b j e c t i v e . A g a i n s t
t h i s impressive a r r a y of pervasive jury-contaminating influ-
e n c e s , t h e T r i b u n e o f f e r e d n o t one smidgen of e v i d e n c e i n
t h e h e a r i n g i t had r e q u e s t e d .
Based on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , t h e d i s t r i c t judge made
f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s f o r submission t o u s . In a matter
of t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l w e i g h t , t h i s C o u r t need n o t s u r r e n d e r
t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e u l t i m a t e power
o f f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t o r d i n a r i l y would be a c c o r d e d under
Rule 52, M.R.Civ.P. ( i d e n t i c a l t o Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P.).
Especially i s t h i s t r u e i n an o r i g i n a l proceedings i n t h i s
C o u r t , such a s t h i s c a s e . But w e owe, i n c o u r t e s y t o t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , some l o g i c a l and d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n why
h i s f i n d i n g s a r e o v e r r u l e d by u s on a r e c o r d s u c h a s t h i s .
H e i s a f t e r a l l a t t h e s c e n e of t h e t r i a l , w i t h a f e e l f o r
what i s t a k i n g p l a c e i n t h e c a s e he i s s u p e r v i s i n g . He h a s
t h e e x p e r i e n c e now o f t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n of some 30
j u r y p a n e l members. H i s o p i n i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o a good d e a l
of w e i g h t , i n t h e l i g h t o f h i s r e c o r d a s a t r i a l judge.
The T r i b u n e a r g u e s n o n e t h e l e s s t h a t t h e r e c o r d h e r e of
p r e j u d i c e i s d e f i c i e n t ; t h a t no a f f i d a v i t h a s been f i l e d
by p e r s o n s c l a i m i n g t h e y have been p r e j u d i c e d by t h e p r e s s
c o v e r a g e ; t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s m e r e l y assumed p r e -
j u d i c e ; and t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t a j u r o r w i t h a
pre-formed o p i n i o n may y e t s e r v e a s a j u r o r i f h e t e s t i f i e s
t h a t he c a n s e t a s i d e t h e p r e j u d i c e and d e c i d e upon t h e
e v i d e n c e of t h e c a s e . W e c o u l d answer t h a t 1 0 of t h e 30
p l u s p e r s o n s who have been examined have s a i d t h e y a r e i n -
deed p r e j u d i c e d and have been excused f o r c a u s e . That i s
n o t t h e k i n d o f r e s p o n s e w e s h o u l d make however, b e c a u s e i t
does n o t r e a l l y m e e t t h e t r u e l e g a l i s s u e i n t h e case.
The T r i b u n e would have u s a d o p t a s a p r e v a i l i n g r u l e
t h a t t h e t e s t o f a b e f o u l e d j u r y atmosphere i s t h e same a s
t h a t a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i m p a r t i a l i t y of a j u r y c a n d i -
date. Not s o . I n t h e d i s s e n t i n G a n n e t t upon which t h e
T r i b u n e s o s t r o n g l y r e l i e s , J u s t i c e Blackmun s e t o u t a
t h r e e - f o l d t e s t f o r t h i s t y p e of c a s e which s h o u l d be d e t e r -
minative. I t i s a t e s t w e c o u l d a d o p t h e r e , and i f a d o p t e d ,
we would p e r f o r c e s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i c t judge and a c t p e r -
f e c t l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n s .
The G a n n e t t c a s e ( G a n n e t t Co., I n c . v. DePasquale ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
U.S. ,
99 S.Ct. 2898, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 608) i s t h e
what
measuring s t i c k on/our d e c i s i o n s h o u l d be h e r e . It is
r e c e n t , i t i s on a l l - f o u r s , and w e have w r i t t e n comment by
a t l e a s t 4 o f t h e 9 Supreme C o u r t j u s t i c e s on t h e m a t t e r .
Even w i t h o u t a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y i n G a n n e t t , one c a n
see i n t h i s c a s e t h a t Judge Coder m e t t h e minimum b u t more
s t r i c t test f o r c l o s u r e t h a t t h e minority i n Gannett postu-
lated. W e w i l l examine G a n n e t t i n d e t a i l t o d e m o n s t r a t e
this.
The f a c t s i n G a n n e t t , when compared w i t h t h o s e of
Austad, show t h a t t h e Austad c a s e p r e s e n t s a f a r more com-
p e l l i n g r e a s o n f o r t h e c l o s u r e of t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n .
G a n n e t t i n v o l v e d t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s , two men and an un-
i d e n t i f i e d woman, who w e r e c h a r g e d i n Seneca County, N e w
York, w i t h t h e crimes of second d e g r e e murder, r o b b e r y and
g r a n d l a r c e n y , t h e woman b e i n g i n d i c t e d o n l y on t h e c o u n t
of g r a n d l a r c e n y . I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e v i c t i m , Wayne Clapp,
had d i s a p p e a r e d w h i l e on a b o a t r i d e w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s on
Lake Seneca. S h o t s had been h e a r d , and b u l l e t h o l e s found
i n t h e b o a t which i n d i c a t e d t h a t Clapp h a s been t h e v i c t i m
of f o u l p l a y . There w e r e 1 4 news a r t i c l e s c o v e r i n g t h e
e v e n t s from J u l y 20 t o August 6 o f t h e y e a r i n q u e s t i o n ,
r e p o r t e d by two newspapers owned by G a n n e t t , t h e Democrat
And C h r o n i c l e , t h e morning p a p e r , and t h e Times-Union,
t h e evening paper. Some of t h e f o u r t e e n s t o r i e s were i d e n -
t i c a l i n t h e two p a p e r s . Public i n t e r e s t i n the case w a s
a r o u s e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e was p r o p o s i n g t o t r y t h e d e f e n -
d a n t s w i t h o u t h a v i n g found t h e body of t h e v i c t i m . From
J u s t i c e Blackmun's d i s s e n t ( 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 639) we l e a r n t h a t
from 90 d a y s p r e c e d i n g t h e h e a r i n g on a motion t o s u p p r e s s
c o n f e s s i o n s , t h e r e were no p u b l i c a t i o n s . It a l s o appears
t h a t t h e s t o r i e s c o n s i s t e d e n t i r e l y of s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d
r e p o r t i n g of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a r r e s t s , and c h a r g e s ; no
" e d i t o r i a l i z i n g " and n o t h i n g t h a t a f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n c o u l d
d e s c r i b e as s e n s a t i o n a l journalism. There w a s one photograph.
The h e a d l i n e s were f a c t u a l ; n o t h i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
s t o r i e s w e r e p l a c e d on t h e page w i t h i n t h e p a p e r s o as t o
p l a y up t h e murder i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The s t o r i e s w e r e r e l a -
t i v e l y b r i e f , appeared only i n connection w i t h each develop-
ment of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and gave no i n d i c a t i o n o f b e i n g
published t o s u s t a i n popular i n t e r e s t i n t h e case.
A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e c o n f e s -
s i o n s , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l moved t o e x c l u d e t h e p r e s s from t h e
hearings. The d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y d i d n o t o b j e c t and t h e
court forthwith entered a closure order. Those a r e t h e
f a c t s i n Gannett.
For t h e purpose of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n on t h e Austad c a s e ,
w e may concede t h a t t h e a r t i c l e s a p p e a r t o be s t r a i g h t -
forward r e p o r t i n g of t h e f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a -
t i o n , a r r e s t and c h a r g e s a g a i n s t Austad. There d o e s n o t
a p p e a r t o be any a t t e m p t t o " e d i t o r i a l i z e " o r t o e n t e r i n t o
s e n s a t i o n a l journalism; t h e s t o r i e s a r e f a i r l y placed i n t h e
s u c c e s s i v e i s s u e s of t h e T r i b u n e , t h e h e a d l i n e s are f a c t u a l ,
the stories relatively brief. Nearly every t i m e , f o r r e f e r -
e n c e , t h e s t o r i e s r e f l e c t t h a t Austad i s charged w i t h t h e
rape-murder of Mabel Wald, a g e 69. W have mentioned o t h e r
e
i t e m s appearing i n t h e Tribune s t o r i e s .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e T r i b u n e s t o r i e s , t h e r e was t h e
t e l e v i s i o n news c o v e r a g e of which s c r i p t s have been s u p p l i e d
i n t h i s record. Nothing i n t h e G a n n e t t c a s e shows u s what
t h e t e l e v i s i o n c o v e r a g e w a s a s t o t h e Clapp murder. The
t e l e v i s i o n c o v e r a g e of t h e Austad c a s e c o n t i n u e d i n much t h e
same manner a s t h e T r i b u n e c o v e r a g e , r e p o r t i n g e a c h succeed-
i n g development i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a r r e s t , a r r a i g n m e n t
and p r o s p e c t i v e t r i a l of Austad.
The p e r v a s i v e n e s s of t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s i s g r e a t e r i n
Austad t h a n i t w a s i n G a n n e t t . W e f i n d from G a n n e t t that
t h e two newspapers i n q u e s t i o n are p u b l i s h e d i n R o c h e s t e r ,
Monroe County, N e w York, 40 m i l e s from t h e Seneca County
line. The c i r c u l a t i o n of t h e newspapers i s p r i m a r i l y i n
Monroe County. There a r e s u b s c r i b e r s however, i n Seneca
County. -
I n 1976, when t h e c a s e a r o s e , t h e Democrat And
C h r o n i c l e had a Seneca County d a i l y c i r c u l a t i o n of 1 , 0 2 2 and
t h e Sunday c i r c u l a t i o n 1 , 5 3 2 , The Times-Union p u b l i s h e d
o n l y a d a i l y e d i t i o n and had o n l y one s u b s c r i b e r i n Seneca
County. Seneca C o u n t y ' s 1976 p o p u l a t i o n was s e t by t h e
Bureau o f Census a t 34,000. I t a p p e a r s from a f o o t n o t e t h a t
t h e only record o f f e r e d i n t h e Gannett case r e l a t e d t o t h e
p u b l i c a t i o n s t h a t a p p e a r e d i n t h e s e two newspapers. There
was n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e t e l e v i s i o n c o v e r a g e o r o t h e r news-
p a p e r s i n Seneca County a t t h e t i m e .
Compare t h a t w i t h t h e Austad c a s e . The G r e a t F a l l s
T r i b u n e i s t h e s i n g l e d a i l y newspaper p u b l i s h e d i n Cascade
County. Its reported d a i l y c i r c u l a t i o n i s approximately
45,000 though i t must be a d m i t t e d t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n
o f i t s c i r c u l a t i o n g o e s o u t s i d e of Cascade County. However,
t h e T r i b u n e e n j o y s a c o n s i d e r a b l e s a t u r a t i o n o f t h e house-
h o l d s i n Cascade County. The County i t s e l f had a 1970
p o p u l a t i o n of 81,804 p e r s o n s and a n e s t i m a t e d J a n u a r y 1,
1979 p o p u l a t i o n of 85,100 p e r s o n s . Seven r a d i o s t a t i o n s
o p e r a t e i n G r e a t F a l l s , 3 F.M. and 4 A.M. There a r e two
t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s a l s o broadcasting i n G r e a t F a l l s .
On a comparable b a s i s , t h e r e f o r e , from what a p p e a r s i n
G a n n e t t , and what w e see i n Austad, t h e p r e s s c o v e r a g e of
t h e i n c i d e n t i n Austad was g r e a t e r and more p e r v a s i v e and
r e a c h e d more p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s . Added t o t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s
t h e f a c t t h a t i n G a n n e t t , a s J u s t i c e Blackmun p o i n t e d o u t ,
t h e p u b l i c a t i o n w a s n o t u n a b a t e d , t h e r e b e i n g 90 d a y s of no
p u b l i c a t i o n between t h e l a s t newspaper a r t i c l e and t h e
h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s . H e r e i n Austad, t h e
p u b l i c a t i o n h a s c o n t i n u e d unabated and t h e p r o c e e d i n g s of
t h e t r i a l a r e b e i n g r e p o r t e d even now. W e do n o t d e c r y t h i s
c o n t i n u o u s p u b l i c a t i o n of f a c t s t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s a l e g i -
t i m a t e i n t e r e s t t o r e c e i v e ; w e simply s t a t e t h a t t h e p u b l i -
c a t i o n s have o c c u r r e d f o r t h e purpose o f showing t h e back-
ground f a c i n g Judge Coder when he d e c i d e d t h a t t o o b t a i n a
f a i r j u r y , he had t o c l o s e t h e v o i r d i r e e x a m i n a t i o n .
The j u s t i c e s making up t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e c o u r t i n
G a n n e t t were S t e w a r t , who d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e
C o u r t , w i t h c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n s by Burger, Powell and R e h n q u i s t ,
and S t e v e n s who j o i n e d t h e p r i n c i p a l o p i n i o n . The d i s s e n t i n g
o p i n i o n was w r i t t e n by Blackmun, and Brennan, White and
M a r s h a l l j o i n e d i n t h e d i s s e n t which by t h e way a l s o con-
curred i n p a r t with the majority.
There i s no d o u b t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y s u s t a i n s t h e r i g h t
o f a t r i a l c o u r t t o t a k e p r o t e c t i v e measures t o i n s u r e a
fair trial. The m a j o r i t y s a i d :
"This c o u r t has long recognized t h a t adverse
p u b l i c i t y c a n endanger t h e a b i l i t y o f a
defendant t o receive a f a i r t r i a l . [Citing
c a s e s . ] To s a f e g u a r d t h e due p r o c e s s r i g h t s
of t h e a c c u s e d , a t r i a l judge h a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u t y t o minimize t h e e f f e c t s
of p r e j u d i c i a l p r e t r i a l p u b l i c i t y . [Citing
a case.] And b e c a u s e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ' s p e r -
v a s i v e c o n c e r n f o r t h o s e due p r o c e s s r i g h t s , a
t r i a l judge may s u r e l y t a k e p r o t e c t i v e measures
even when t h e y a r e n o t s t r i c t l y and i n e s c a p a b l y
necessary." 99 S.Ct. a t 2904, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 620.
The m a j o r i t y i n G a n n e t t t h e n went on t o examine t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m t h a t t h e p r e s s had a r i g h t of a c c e s s a s
a p a r t of t h e p u b l i c t o c r i m i n a l t r i a l s a t any s t a g e of t h e
proceedings. The m a j o r i t y found t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
S i x t h Amendment g i v i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a " r i g h t t o a speedy
and p u b l i c t r i a l by a n i m p a r t i a l j u r y " i s f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f
t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e r e i s n o t t h e s l i g h t e s t s u g g e s t i o n t h a t
t h e r e i s any c o r r e l a t i v e r i g h t i n members of t h e p u b l i c t o
i n s i s t upon a p u b l i c t r i a l . I t agreed t h a t a defendant does
n o t have t h e r i g h t t o command a p r i v a t e t r i a l b u t s e t t l e d on
t h e i s s u e t h a t members of t h e p u b l i c do n o t have a n e n f o r c e -
a b l e r i g h t t o a p u b l i c t r i a l t h a t c o u l d be a s s e r t e d i n d e -
p e n d e n t l y of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n . 99 S.Ct. at
2906, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 624. I t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e r e was no
common law r i g h t on t h e p a r t of t h e p u b l i c t o a t t e n d t h e
c r i m i n a l t r i a l and t h a t t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e common law demon-
s t r a t e d o n l y t h e e x i s t e n c e of a common l a w r u l e of open,
c i v i l and c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s . 99 S . C t . a t 2908, 6 1 L.Ed.2d
a t 624. I t t h e n went on t o f i n d t h a t t h e S i x t h and Four-
t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n do n o t g r a n t any r i g h t
t o a t t e n d such p r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s which a s were b e f o r e t h e
Court i n Gannett. 99 S . C t . a t 2911, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 628.
F i n a l l y , i n examining t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments,
it found no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l impediment i n t h o s e amendments
b e c a u s e t h e p r e s s a t any r a t e would e v e n t u a l l y have t h e
r i g h t t o a c c e s s t o a t r a n s c r i p t and f u r t h e r b e c a u s e t h e
d e n i a l of a c c e s s was o n l y temporary. 99 S.Ct. a t 2912, 61
L.Ed.2d a t 629.
The c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n s are o f i n t e r e s t . Chief J u s t i c e
B u r g e r , i n c o n c u r r i n g , emphasized t h a t t h e motion t o sup-
p r e s s e v i d e n c e was n o t a t r i a l , b u t a p r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s .
F o r t h a t r e a s o n , we do n o t c o u n t him a; supporting t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n of t h e m a j o r i t y t h a t t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n any
e v e n t may be c l o s e d by a c o u r t w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g f e d e r a l
constitutional rights.
J u s t i c e Powell, i n c o n c u r r i n g , s e t t h e q u e s t i o n a s w e
b e l i e v e i t s h o u l d be posed:
". . . The q u e s t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ,
t h e r e f o r e , i n c o n s i d e r i n g a motion t o c l o s e
a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g i s whether
a f a i r t r i a l f o r t h e defendant i s l i k e l y
t o be j e o p a r d i z e d by p u b l i c i t y , i f members
o f t h e p r e s s and p u b l i c a r e p r e s e n t and f r e e
t o r e p o r t p r e j u d i c i a l evidence t h a t w i l l not
be presented t o t h e jury." 99 S.Ct. a t 2916,
61 L.Ed.2d a t 634.
J u s t i c e Rehnquist, i n h i s concurring opinion, cautioned
t h a t t h e r e i s no s e t p r o c e d u r e t o be employed by a t r i a l
c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t a p a r t of t h e t r i a l s h o u l d
be c l o s e d . He s a i d :
". . . To t h e c o n t r a r y , i n m view a n d , I
y
t h i n k , i n t h e view o f a m a j o r i t y of t h i s
C o u r t , t h e lower c o u r t s a r e under no con-
s t i t u t i o n a l constraint e i t h e r t o accept o r
r e j e c t those procedures. They remain, i n
t h e b e s t t r a d i t i o n of our f e d e r a l system, f r e e
t o d e t e r m i n e f o r t h e m s e l v e s t h e q u e s t i o n whether
t o open o r c l o s e t h e p r o c e e d i n g . Hopefully,
t h e y w i l l d e c i d e t h e q u e s t i o n by accommodating
competing i n t e r e s t s i n a j u d i c i o u s manner. But
s o f a r as t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e
q u e s t i o n i s f o r them, n o t u s , t o r e s o l v e . " 99
S.Ct. a t 2918-19, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 637-38.
W a d v e r t now t o t h e f i n d i n g of Judge Coder i n Austad
e
which i l l u s t r a t e s why h e r e a c h e d t h e same c o n c l u s i o n a s d i d
t h e m a j o r i t y i n Gannett:
"The e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n
s u p p o r t of d e f e n s e motions t o c o n t r o l p r e t r i a l
p u b l i c i t y , change of p l a c e of t r i a l , s e q u e s t r a t i o n ,
c o n t i n u a n c e and r e l a t e d m a t t e r s i n d i c a t e d , among
o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e p u b l i c i t y h a s been sub-
s t a n t i a l ; t h a t i t o r o t h e r p o r t i o n s of i t o r i g i n a t e d
from t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and p o l i c e ; t h a t i t d i s c l o s e s
e v i d e n c e n o t g e n e r a l l y known t o t h e p u b l i c ; t h a t
it discloses the accused's p r i o r criminal record,
and s p e c u l a t e s on h i s involvement i n s i m i l a r
c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t i e s ; f u r t h e r t h a t such p u b l i c i t y
c o n t a i n s m a t e r i a l m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of known
f a c t s ; t h a t such m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s by t h e v e r y
n a t u r e a r e h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l and by t h e v e r y
r e p e t i t i o n and c o n t i n u e d r e p u b l i c a t i o n , up t o
and i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e of t h e j u r y s e l e c t i o n , c a n
o n l y be viewed by a n a t t e m p t t o i n f l u e n c e t h e
p u b l i c and p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s r e g a r d i n g t h e
g u i l t o f t h e a c c u s e d Austad." Findings, X X I I ( 1 ) .
I f J u s t i c e R e h n q u i s t i s c o r r e c t i n h i s view of t h e
m a j o r i t y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , Judge Coder w a s
under no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t e i t h e r t o have f u r t h e r
h e a r i n g s on t h e m a t t e r o r t o l o o k t o t h i s C o u r t f o r g u i d a n c e ;
he was " f r e e t o d e t e r m i n e f o r [ h i m s e l f ] t h e q u e s t i o n [ o f ]
whether t o open o r c l o s e t h e p r o c e e d i n g " . 99 S.Ct. a t 2919,
The f o r e g o i n g d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t under t h e m a j o r i t y view
i n G a n n e t t , t h e o r d e r of Judge Coder c l o s i n g t h e v o i r d i r e
e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e s h o u l d have been s u s t a i n e d . We
w i l l now d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t even under t h e view of t h e m i n o r i t y
i n t h e G a n n e t t c a s e , he would l i k e w i s e be s u s t a i n e d .
J u s t i c e Blackmun, w r i t i n g f o r t h e d i s s e n t i n g j u s t i c e s ,
d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y i n t h a t he found t h a t t h e p u b l i c
t r i a l p r o v i s i o n s of t h e S i x t h Amendment p r o v i d e d a r i g h t of
access t o the public t o trials. H e saw l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e
i n a p r e t r i a l s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g and t h e t r i a l i t s e l f f o r
t h e p u r p o s e of t h e S i x t h Amendment. 99 S.Ct. a t 2934, 6 1
L.Ed.2d a t 657. N o n e t h e l e s s , he s a w t h a t t r i a l c o u r t s i n
c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s must have t h e r i g h t t o c l o s e t r i a l s t o
the public. H e said:
". . . Because of t h e importance w e a t t a c h t o
a f a i r t r i a l , i t i s c l e a r t h a t whatever r e s t r i c -
t i o n s on a c c e s s t h e S i x t h Amendment may p r o h i b i t
i n another context, i t does n o t prevent a t r i a l
c o u r t from r e s t r i c t i n g a c c e s s t o a p r e t r i a l sup-
p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g where such r e s t r i c t i o n i s n e c e s -
s a r y i n o r d e r t o i n s u r e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t n o t be
denied a f a i r t r i a l a s a r e s u l t of p r e j u d i c i a l
p u b l i c i t y f l o w i n g from t h a t h e a r i n g [ c i t i n g a
case]." 99 S.Ct. a t 2936, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t 659.
J u s t i c e Blackmun t h e n proposed a t h r e e - f o l d test t o
support a finding t h a t t h e f a i r t r i a l r i g h t of a defendant
would be i r r e p a r a b l y damaged i f t h e p r o c e e d i n g were con-
ducted i n public. Under t h a t t e s t , t h e a c c u s e d would
establish:
" F i r s t , he s h o u l d p r o v i d e a n a d e q u a t e b a s i s t o
support a finding t h a t there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i r r e p a r a b l e damage t o h i s f a i r
t r i a l r i g h t w i l l r e s u l t from c o n d u c t i n g t h e
proceeding i n public. T h i s showing w i l l depend
on t h e f a c t s . ..
"Second, t h e a c c u s e d s h o u l d show a s u b s t a n t i a l
probability t h a t alternatives t o closure w i l l
n o t p r o t e c t adequately h i s r i g h t t o a f a i r
t r i a l . One may s u g g e s t numerous a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
b u t I t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d :
c o n t i n u a n c e , s e v e r a n c e , change of venue, change
- --
of venire, v o i r d i r e , p e r e m p t o r ~ c h a l l e n g e s ,
s e q u e s t r a t i o n , and admonition of t h e j u r y . ..
"Third, t h e accused should demonstrate t h a t
there i s a substantial probability t h a t closure
w i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n p r o t e c t i n g a g a i n s t t h e p e r -
c e i v e d harm. ..
" I f , a f t e r considering the e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r s , t h e
t r i a l c o u r t determines t h a t t h e accused has
c a r r i e d h i s burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t c l o s u r e
i s n e c e s s a r y , t h e S i x t h Amendment i s no b a r r i e r
t o r e a s o n a b l e r e s t r i c t i o n s on p u b l i c access
d e s i g n e d t o m e e t t h a t need, any r e s t r i c t i o n s
imposed, however, s h o u l d e x t e n d no f u r t h e r t h a n
t h e circumstances reasonably require. . ." (Empha-
s i s added.) 99 S.Ct. a t 2937-39, 6 1 L.Ed.2d a t
660-62.
Judge Coder h a s m e t t h e t e s t s proposed by t h e m i n o r i t y
i n Gannett. Having d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a d v e r s e p u b l i c i t y
was prejudicial, he considered the alternatives. He examined
the possibility of sequestration and determined it would be
necessary to sequester 75 to 100 at the outset. He calcu-
lated the sequestration of 75 jurors would cost the county
$3,225 per day and projected a prospective cost for a three
week trial of $32,000 simply for sequestration. On the
basis of cost, the logistical problems involved, and the
unconscionable burden on the prospective jurors that would
be called for in sequestration, he discarded that as a
possibility. He next looked at the possibility of a change
of venue. The law requires the removal to a county not
adjoining the county in which the crime was committed. Here
he had a defendant confined to a wheelchair who required
daily assistance to get to and from the proceedings, and
required help in the performance of the simplest physical
functions. Again, the trial could only be conducted for
3-1/2 hours per day because of the defendant's physical
condition. Sixty witnesses are listed on the information of
which all but two are residents of the Great Falls area. He
therefore discarded the possibility of a change of venue. A
continuance was out because already 20 months had elapsed
since the date of the crime. He therefore determined that
individual examination on voir dire was necessary, and that
publication of the voir dire would be detrimental to the
defendant, saying:
"By reason of the nature of the offenses charged
and the quantity and quality of pretrial publicity
the voir dire of the prospective jurors will be
extensive, and by necessity will involve examin-
ation not only on the grounds for disqualification
for cause as enumerated by statute, but also the
individual jurors opinions, feelings, biases and
prejudice, whether inherent or traumatically
induced, anent the offenses charged. That such
examination by both the defense and prosecution
is unquestionably necessary to the intelligent
exercise of their peremptory challenges.
"To expose t h e s e j u r o r s , t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o s u c h
v o i r d i r e q u e s t i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r names
and a d d r e s s e s would have such a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t
on t h e i r c a n d o r and w i l l i n g n e s s t o a p p r o p r i a t e l y
respond t o s u c h q u e s t i o n s a s t o r e n d e r n u g a t o r y
t h e p u r p o s e s of i n d i v i d u a l v o i r d i r e . "
W e submit t h a t t h e temporary p r o t e c t i v e measure t a k e n
by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was s t r i c t l y and i n e s c a p a b l y n e c e s s a r y
and would have been s u p p o r t e d , even by t h e m i n o r i t y i n
Gannett .
W have d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t whether one a g r e e s w i t h t h e
e
m i n o r i t y i n G a n n e t t t h a t t h e S i x t h Amendment p r o v i d e s t h e
public a r i g h t t o access t o a criminal t r i a l , o r with the
m a j o r i t y , t h a t t h e r e i s no such r i g h t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o f f e n d e d no f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of t h e T r i b u n e
i n making i t s temporary c l o s u r e o r d e r . However, t h e T r i b u n e
a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t under A r t i c l e 11, 89, of t h e 1972 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n t h e i r r i g h t t o a t t e n d t h e v o i r d i r e examination
e x i s t s a p a r t from t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n .
A r t i c l e 11, 89, s t a t e s :
" S e c t i o n 9. R i g h t t o know. No p e r s o n s h a l l
b e d e p r i v e d o f t h e r i g h t t o examine documents
o r t o observe t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s of a l l p u b l i c
b o d i e s o r a g e n c i e s of s t a t e government and
i t s s u b d i v i s i o n s , e x c e p t i n c a s e s i n which t h e
demand of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y c l e a r l y e x c e e d s
t h e m e r i t s of p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . "
I f w e w e r e t o c o n s t r u e A r t i c l e 11, 89 a s an a b s o l u t e
r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e be open t o t h e
p u b l i c a t a l l t i m e s , w e would r u n a f o u l even of t h e m i n o r i t y
o p i n i o n i n G a n n e t t , which h o l d s t h a t a t t h e l e a s t , t h e r e
must be a h e a r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c l o s u r e i s s t r i c t l y
and i n e s c a p a b l y n e c e s s a r y . There i s no need t o s o h o l d i n t h i s
c a s e , however, b e c a u s e t h e T r i b u n e h a s conceded i n o r a l
argument t h a t i t d o e s n o t c o n t e n d t h a t c o u r t s may n e v e r
c l o s e t h e i r proceedings t o public s c r u t i n y . Again, i t i s a
matter of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b a l a n c e . The p u b l i c ' s r i g h t t o
know, s e t f o r t h i n t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , must i n t h i s
c a s e , g i v e way t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
right to a fair trial; I n d e e d , A r t i c l e 11, S9 of t h e Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n must be b a l a n c e d w i t h A r t i c l e 11, S 2 4 o f t h e
same c o n s t i t u t i o n which g i v e s a n a c c u s e d a r i g h t t o a speedy
t r i a l "by a n i m p a r t i a l j u r y of t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e
o f f e n s e i s a l l e g e d t o have been committed." Implicit i n
t h a t l a s t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i s t h e d u t y and a u t h o r i t y
o f a c o u r t t o t a k e s u c h p r o t e c t i v e measures a s may be neces-
s a r y t o i n s u r e t h e a c c u s e d i s g i v e n a t r i a l by an i m p a r t i a l
jury.
The m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n l e a n s h e a v i l y on t h e 1972 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 9, t h e " r i g h t t o know"
provision. W a r e n o t persuaded t h a t t h e f e d e r a l guaranty
e
of a f a i r t r i a l , a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a c c r u i n g t o a n
i n d i v i d u a l , c a n be o v e r r i d d e n by a s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
p r o v i s i o n which i s a t b e s t a d e c l a r a t i o n of s t a t e c o n s t i -
t u t i o n a l policy. The supremacy of t h e f e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
d e c l a r e d i n A r t i c l e V I and r e c o g n i z e d f u l l y by a l l c o u r t s ,
p r e c l u d e s any i n t r u s i o n i n t h e g u i s e of s t a t e a c t i o n t h a t
would i n v a d e o r d e g r a d e t h e f e d e r a l f a i r t r i a l g u a r a n t y .
Even i f t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i s n o t e x p r e s s l y
d e s i g n e d t o i m p a i r t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t s ,
t h e Supremacy C l a u s e b a r s t h a t e f f e c t where n e c e s s a r y . See
a s a n example, G r i m e s v. Hoschler ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 2 Cal.3d 305,
525 P.2d 65, c e r t . d e n . 420 U.S. 973, 95 S.Ct. 1394, 4 2 0 u.S.
973.
A s members of t h i s C o u r t , and p e r s o n a l l y , w e a r e com-
m i t t e d t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t h e p u b l i c ' s r i g h t t o know.
However, w e c a n n o t concur t h a t such r i g h t i s a b s o l u t e , and
t h a t it o v e r r i d e s a defendant's r i g h t t o an i m p a r t i a l jury.
W e c a n n o t and do n o t p r e d i c t t h e f u t u r e ; b u t i t may w e l l
t u r n o u t t h a t i n t h e Austad c a s e , t h i s C o u r t h a s i n v i t e d
d i s a s t e r , a s t h e d i s t r i c t judge s t a t e d i n h i s o r a l argument.
To c l o s e , we must remind o u r s e l v e s t h a t , i m p o r t a n t a s
may be t h e r o l e o f t h e p r e s s i n k e e p i n g c i t i z e n s informed,
i t i s n o t i n s o d o i n g e x e r c i s i n g a governmental f u n c t i o n .
The p r e s s i s s t i l l t h e F o u r t h E s t a t e . I t s power and r i g h t
a r e n o t on a p a r w i t h t h e governmental power and r i g h t of
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , a power
d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y from t h e c i t i z e n s t h r o u g h t h e i r d u l y
adopted c o n s t i t u t i o n . I n a l l c a s e s where t h e d u t y of t h e
p r e s s t o keep c i t i z e n s informed c o l l i d e s w i t h t h e d u t y of
t h e c o u r t t o e n s u r e an a c c u s e d a f a i r t r i a l , t h e d u t y of t h e
c o u r t must p r e v a i l .
Justice
I concur i n t h e f o r e g o i n g d i s s e n t
n fi 1