Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia PDF

Preview

Summary

Court Case...

Description

Skyler Riddle Richmond Newspaper v. Virginia (1980) 7-1

Chief Justice Burger

Facts: (July 1976) John Stevenson was convicted of stabbing a hotel manager to death under the Virginia law. Appellate court reversed the conviction on the grounds of a procedural error, and the case was heard again. (1978) Both trials were considered mistrials, bringing media attention to the case. Due to the attention, Stevenson’s attorney asked to have the case closed to the public, and such was granted. Reporters brought the case to court because it violated the First amendment, and asked that the Court overturn a previous case, Gannett. Issue: Whether the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the Constitution? Held: Yes Reasoning: The Court held that the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guaranteed of the First amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of freedom of speech, and “of the press could be eviscerated.” The Court made clear in Gannett that the accused is guaranteed the right to a public trail, but not a private trial. The First amendment encompassed not only the right to speak, but also the freedom to listen, and to receive information and ideas. Also, the First amendment guarantees the right of assembly in public places including courthouses. Concurring: (Brennan) (Marshall) Va. Code §19.2-266 (Supp. 1980) violates the First and Fourteenth amendment, and therefore the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court to the contrary should be reversed. Dissent: (Rehnquist) The First or Sixth amendment does not require that a State’s reasons for denying public access to a trial, where both parties consent to an order of closure approved by the judge, are subject to any additional constitutional review at the Court’s hands. Also, the Ninth amendment confers upon any such power to review orders of state trial judges closing trials in the same situations. The question presented in this case is whether provisions in the Constitution may fairly be read to prohibit what the trial judge in Virginia state-court system did in this case, rather than whether the “right” to freedom of press conferred with the First amendment overrides the defendant’s “right” to a fair trial conferred by other amendments....