Arkansas Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 83-190

• Decision Date: 16 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-190,83-190
• Parties: ARKANSAS NEWSPAPER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation, d/b/a Courier Democrat, and Laura Shull, Petitioners, v. John S. PATTERSON, Circuit Judge, Respondent.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 826

662 S.W.2d 826

281 Ark. 213

ARKANSAS NEWSPAPER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation, d/b/a

Courier Democrat, and Laura Shull, Petitioners, v. John S. PATTERSON, Circuit Judge, Respondent.

No. 83-190.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 16, 1984.

Alex G. Street, Russellville, for petitioner.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Curtis L. Nebben, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.

DUDLEY, Justice.

A fifteen year old boy was charged with capital murder and, in the pretrial proceedings, the circuit judge closed two hearings and ordered a written motion sealed. The petitioners, the Courier Democrat of Russellville and Laura Shull, a newspaper publishing company and a newspaper reporter, contend that the closing of pretrial hearings is prohibited on account of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 22-109 (Repl.1962), which provides: "The sitting of every court shall be public, and every person may freely attend the same." They ask this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing John S. Patterson, the judge, to cease excluding reporters from any part of criminal proceedings. We deny the writ. Jurisdiction is in this Court under Rule 29(1)(f).

In Arkansas Television Company and Beasley v. Tedder, Judge, 281 Ark. 152, 662 S.W.2d 174 (1983), we weighed the above quoted statute, the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, and held that pretrial hearings should be open to the public unless the proponent of closure demonstrates "a substantial probability that (1) irreparable damage to the defendant's fair trial right will result from an open hearing and (2) alternatives to closure will not adequately protect the right to a fair trial. Additionally, the trial court's findings must be articulated and sufficiently specific to demonstrate on review that these requirements have been satisfied." The reasoning and the holding of Arkansas Television are controlling in the case now before us. The pretrial hearings should not have been closed because the standard set out in Arkansas Television was not met.

Not specifically considered in Arkansas Television, but arising in this case, is the propriety of an order sealing a written pretrial motion. Petitioners contend that, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 12-2801--12-2807 (Repl.1979), the motion, when filed, became a part of the public records and public records must remain open for inspection and copying by any citizen. The argument is without merit. First, as a practical matter, it would be farcical to...