New York Times Co., In re

Decision Date21 June 1989
Docket NumberD,No. 1500,1500
Citation878 F.2d 67
Parties16 Media L. Rep. 1877 In re Application of the NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Applicants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, v. James Sutton REGAN, et al., Defendants. ocket 89-1294.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Mitchell A. Karlan, New York City(Robert D. Sack, Stuart D. Karle, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New York City, of counsel), for appellant Dow Jones & Co.

Deborah R. Linfield, The New York Times, New York City, for appellant The New York Times Co.

Before MESKILL, PIERCE and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an expedited appeal from an oral order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Carter, J., barring counsel in the criminal case United States v. Regan, S88 Crim. 517, from speaking to members of the press between the time jury selection in that case begins and the time the jury returns a verdict. Appellants The New York Times Co. and Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (the newspapers) publish The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The newspapers challenge the order as violative of the First Amendment's protections of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The order in question was in the form of an oral ruling barring all comment by counsel to the press while the trial is underway. The order was later modified so that "[o]ne representative of the defendants and [one representative] of the government ... [could] talk to you [the press] together and give you facts."

We note first that no written motion or application for permission to intervene was filed by the newspapers in the district court. They did, however, at a hearing before Judge Carter, make a motion to intervene "so that we have standing to take this to the Second Circuit." Judge Carter replied that "[y]ou have every right to do that." We interpret this exchange as the making and the granting of a motion to intervene, as Judge Carter clearly believed that this is what had occurred, stating later that the newspapers "have every right to appeal" the order.

Nevertheless, the question arose at oral argument whether a live case or controversy has been presented to this Court. No rule of federal criminal procedure allows intervention by third parties in a criminal proceeding and none of the parties below has challenged Judge Carter's order. Without deciding whether the newspapers are proper intervenors or are "alleged third parties to the criminal litigation," In re National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 n. 2 (2d Cir.1980), and assuming they have standing, see In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 606-08 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 377, 102 L.Ed.2d 365 (1988); In re The New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 113 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1272, 99 L.Ed.2d 483 (1988), we vacate the "gag" order.

In Dow Jones, we held that a "gag" order such as the one at issue could only be justified if, at a minimum, the district court found that "pretrial publicity ... posed such a threat to defendants' Sixth Amendment rights as to justify the ... restraining order," 842 F.2d at 610, and that no "other available remedies would effectively mitigate [any] prejudicial publicity," id. at 611; see also id. at 611 n. 1 ("an analysis of the effectiveness of the order in question is a necessary consideration"). While, as in the case before us, the Court in Dow Jones was not presented with a party to the proceedings below arguing that the order was unconstitutional, the Court did know that the government had opposed the order in the district court. Id. at 605, 607-08. Thus, the Court was able to state that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Schaefer
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1991
    ... ... 346] Tallman, 148 Vt. at 474, 537 A.2d at 427 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 508, 104 S.Ct. 819, 823, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ... ; In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area--Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 573 (8th Cir.1988); Seattle Times Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for W.D. of Wash., 845 F.2d 1513, 1517 (9th Cir.1988). We read ... In re New York Times Co., 878 F.2d 67, 68 (2d Cir.1989). Further, the order must be narrowly tailored to cover ... ...
  • U.S. v. Quattrone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 22, 2005
    ...incidents that occurred in a completely separate and unrelated, albeit temporally proximate, trial. Cf. In re Application of N.Y. Times Co., 878 F.2d 67, 67-68 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that district court's experience with problematic pretrial publicity in past cases did not just......
  • Wxia-Tv v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 5, 2018
    ...we cannot say that the record shows even a reasonable likelihood of prejudice sufficient to sustain a gag order. See In re New York Times Co., 878 F.2d 67, 68 (2d Cir. 1989) ("Not only has there been no showing that prejudice may result from statements made to the press by counsel, but ther......
  • Harrelson v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 13, 1997
    ...motions, this dichotomy in the statistical treatment of these two types of motions is anomalous at best. 7. In re New York Times Company, 878 F.2d 67, 67 (2d Cir.1989). 8. On the contrary, there is authority for the opposite contention. See, e.g., In re Application of the New York Times, 70......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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