Patterson v. 8212 765

Decision Date21 March 1975
Docket NumberNo. A,A
Citation43 L.Ed.2d 645,95 S.Ct. 1254,420 U.S. 1301
PartiesWilliam K. PATTERSON et al. Applicants, v. ., Respondents. —765
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 420 U.S. 1001, 95 S.Ct. 1442.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.

Applicants are two California reporters and the managing editor of their newspaper. In January 1975, they published a series of articles containing references to testimony offered in a Fresno County grand jury proceeding, despite the fact that the transcript of that proceeding had been ordered sealed by the local state-court judge before whom the grand jury's indictment was returned. The judge instituted an investigation seeking to uncover any possible violations of his order sealing the grand jury transcript; in the course of that investigation, numerous witnesses were called, including applicants. Applicants state that they were excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the other witnesses, and that their counsel was prevented from cross-examining any of these witnesses. Applicants themselves, when called, refused to answer questions concerning the manner in which they had obtained access to the grand jury transcript, citing various state and federal privileges (not including, except as to one applicant, their privilege against self-incrimination). The judge refused to recognize these claims of privilege, and found applicants in contempt of court on many occasions, although the record before me does not disclose whether these contempt adjudications have ever been formalized in any sense and does not indicate that any sanction has yet been imposed. Applicants unsuccessfully sought extraordinary relief in the state appellate courts, and now state their intention to seek a writ of certiorari to review the denial of such relief, claiming that their confrontation rights and their due process rights, including the right to a fair and impartial hearing, have been violated and will continue to be violated in these proceedings.

I am informed that proceedings are scheduled to continue in the Superior Court at 10 a.m. today. Intervention in a pending state proceeding of this sort undoubtedly is warranted only in extraordinary circumstances. The facts of this case, however, raise disquieting echoes of the constitutional infirmities which we identified in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955), and In re Oliver, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • U.s. Supreme Court Decisions: 1974-1975
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 4-9, September 1975
    • Invalid date
    ...of the relief which is appropriate. 6. Stay by Circuit Justice of State Court Proceedings Patterson v. Superior Court, ___ U.S. ___, 95 S.Ct. 1254, 43 L.Ed.2d 645 (1975): A California state court judge ordered the transcript of a grand jury proceeding sealed. Subsequently, two reporters and......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT