Automate legal research, eDiscovery, and precedent analysis - Let our AI Legal Assistant handle the complexity. (Get started now)
What is the Press-Enterprise Co.
v.
Superior Court case?
The Press-Enterprise Co.
v.
Superior Court case established a two-part test to determine when the public's right of access to criminal proceedings can be overcome - the government must show a compelling interest and that closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
This case built upon the Supreme Court's previous rulings in Globe Newspaper Co.
v.
Superior Court (1982) and Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
v.
Virginia (1980), which recognized a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials.
The specific issue in Press-Enterprise Co.
v.
Superior Court was the public's right to attend the jury selection (voir dire) process in a criminal trial, which the court ruled was also presumptively open to the public.
The case involved the trial of Albert Greenwood Brown Jr.
for the rape and murder of a teenage girl in California.
The trial judge had closed the entire voir dire process to the public and press.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the public's right of access to criminal proceedings extends to the jury selection process, unless the trial court can demonstrate an overriding interest that justifies closure.
The Court established that the presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest that is "articulated in findings" and is "narrowly tailored to serve that interest."
This two-part test has become the standard for determining when the public's First Amendment right of access can be limited in criminal proceedings.
The Court's reasoning was that open proceedings, including jury selection, allow the public to see that justice is being carried out and serve as a check on potential abuses of judicial power.
The Press-Enterprise Co.
case was the fourth in a series of Supreme Court decisions that recognized a presumptive public right of access to criminal trials and pretrial proceedings under the First Amendment.
The case was a significant victory for the media, as it affirmed their constitutional right to attend and report on criminal proceedings, including the sensitive jury selection process.
The ruling in Press-Enterprise Co.
has been applied to a variety of other criminal proceedings beyond just jury selection, including preliminary hearings and plea bargains.
The decision has had a lasting impact on the balance between the public's right of access and a defendant's right to a fair trial, requiring courts to carefully weigh these competing interests.
The case highlighted the important role that open criminal proceedings play in maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and promoting accountability.
The Press-Enterprise Co.
decision has been cited and followed in numerous subsequent cases, solidifying the principle of public access to criminal proceedings as a fundamental First Amendment right.
The ruling placed the burden on the government to justify any closure of criminal proceedings, rather than requiring the media or public to demonstrate a need for access.
The case was a victory for the press's role in serving as a watchdog over the criminal justice system and informing the public about the judicial process.
The decision established that the public's right of access is not absolute and can be overcome in certain limited circumstances, but that the government bears a heavy burden in justifying any closures.
The Press-Enterprise Co.
case had a significant impact on the practices and policies of courts across the United States, requiring them to be more transparent in their proceedings.
The ruling has been influential in shaping the ongoing debate over the balance between public access and defendant privacy, as courts continue to grapple with these competing interests.
The Press-Enterprise Co.
decision remains a landmark Supreme Court case that has had a lasting influence on the legal principles governing public access to criminal proceedings in the United States.
Automate legal research, eDiscovery, and precedent analysis - Let our AI Legal Assistant handle the complexity. (Get started now)