Court Supports Civil Trial Access

In the most sweeping decision of its kind, a state appeals court in Los Angeles has ruled that public access to civil trials is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right.

In a 28-page opinion handed down late Tuesday, the 2nd District of the state Court of Appeal overturned a Burbank judge’s order barring the media and public from the courtroom when the jury hearing a civil trial is not present.

Justice Paul Turner, who presides over the appeals court, wrote that the public’s right to attend court proceedings applied equally to civil and criminal trials. Such public access to civil trials is rooted in English common law and earlier decisions on access to criminal cases.

“The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” Turner wrote.

“We conclude it embodies a right of public access to civil trials.”

The ruling stemmed from the fraud lawsuit filed by actress Sondra Locke against actor-director Clint Eastwood.

Media attorney Kelli L. Sager, who represented KNBC and The Times, said the court had not been specifically asked before to address the issue of public access to civil trials.

“I think this is a landmark case,” Sager said.

Other media attorneys and legal analysts agreed the ruling will have a far-reaching impact, especially following the judicial backlash resulting from the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson.

“A very big deal,” said Terry Franke, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a Sacramento-based press advocacy group. He said he hoped the ruling would help curb what he called “anti-Constitutional overkill” by some courts following the Simpson criminal case.

“A good decision,” agreed Tom Newton, attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., which represents about 500 daily and weekly newspapers in the state.

“We always assumed there was some presumptive 1st Amendment right, and this case firmly confirms those beliefs,” he added. “The court is saying you need an important governmental interest to shut down a civil as well as a criminal trial. This could have some importance in things like the O.J. [Simpson] civil gag order.”

Douglas E. Mirell, an attorney who specializes in media and 1st Amendment issues, said the decision “clarifies and reaffirms important principles which seem to have been forgotten in the wake of the Simpson criminal case.”

He added that it could have wide-ranging ramifications in the emerging field of private judging, as well as “a chilling effect on any other sitting trial judge who tries to restrict media access and public access to what is obviously the public’s institution and business.”

“I doubt Mr. Eastwood or Ms. Locke ever expected they’d be making law in the 1st Amendment area,” Sager said.

Last week, as the trial began, Superior Court Judge David M. Schacter ruled the press and public would be barred from the courtroom when the jury was not present. Hearings regarding evidence and other issues were conducted behind closed courtroom doors.

Sager appeared for the media organizations, and that hearing also was held behind closed doors.

But the appellate court’s opinion offered a window into that hearing. Schacter, according to the document, said he was basing his ruling on the parties’ right to a fair trial by an impartial jury untainted by media reports or other outside influences. He invited the media to pay the costs of sequestering the jury if they wished to attend hearings held outside jurors’ earshot.

“The paramount concern of the court is a fair and impartial jury,” Schacter said. “The media can’t ensure that the information will not be disseminated to the jury and the paramount concern of this court is a fair and impartial jury for the litigants.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of constitutional law at USC, said only criminal defendants are guaranteed a right to a fair trial under the 6th Amendment.

“There is no doubt that the 1st Amendment right applies to all court proceedings,” Chemerinsky said. “It doesn’t just apply to newspapers and the right to cover court trials. It extends to the right of the public to attend governmental proceedings, and that includes judicial proceedings.

Sager also said Schacter had “missed the point that the courts are public courts.”

She added, “You want a private judge, you go to a rent-a-judge.”