Gannett Co. v. DePasquale

Background

A Rochester newspaper publisher sought access to a pretrial hearing in a murder case where two men were accused and defense lawyers moved to exclude the public to protect a fair trial. The suppressed hearing concerned defendants' confessions and physical evidence, and the judge closed the courtroom after the prosecutor did not oppose the motion. The New York courts split, and the issue reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether members of the public have an independent constitutional right to attend a pretrial suppression hearing when the accused, prosecutor, and judge all agree to closure. It held that the Sixth Amendment's public-trial guarantee is personal to the accused and does not create a separate public right. The majority also said that even if a First Amendment access right might exist in some cases, the trial judge here properly balanced competing interests and made a temporary closure; a transcript was later made available.

Real world impact

The practical result is that newspapers and members of the public do not have an automatic constitutional right to attend every pretrial suppression hearing. Trial judges have discretion to close such hearings when necessary to protect fair-trial rights, subject to any procedural safeguards a judge may apply. Because the Court did not decide all First Amendment questions, access rules may vary in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. One Justice urged stronger First Amendment protections for press access and proposed procedural safeguards. Another concurrence emphasized that a suppression hearing is a pretrial matter, not a full trial. A dissenting opinion would have required stricter limits on closure and more searching judicial review.