Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State by Webb

• Decision Date: 06 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. 20984,20984
• Citation: 216 Ga. 399,116 S.E.2d 580
• Parties: ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. STATE of Georgia, by Paul WEBB, Solicitor General.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 580

116 S.E.2d 580

216 Ga. 399

ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. STATE of Georgia, by Paul WEBB, Solicitor General.

No. 20984.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 6, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The power to punish contempts is inherent in every court of record. If the court is created by the Constitution, the legislature cannot, without express constitutional authority, define what are contempts and declare that the court shall have jurisdiction over no acts except those specified.

(a) A statute which attempts to invade the constitutional power of the courts to preserve and enforce their constitutional powers is not binding upon such courts.

2. (a) Freedom of speech and of the press, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is essential to the preservation of a free society; but its exercise must be compatible with the preservation of other freedoms essential to a democracy and guaranteed by our Constitution.

(b) The press should be given the widest latitude possible in the exercise of its freedom which is consonant with the orderly administration of justice, trial by a fair and impartial jury, and the freedom and independence of the courts in the exercise of their constitutional powers and duties.

3. A responsible press, appreciating as it must the great power of the press in a democratic society, should refrain from publishing and distributing news articles which, in the normal course of events would, or which it could reasonably anticipate would, interfere with the trial of a criminal case by an impartial jury; and to do so may subject it to punishment for contempt of court.

4. (a) A jury in a criminal case must be kept together until the conclusion of the trial, but this is a privilege which the defendant may waive.

(b) If, during the trial, the jury is allowed to disperse, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury not to discuss the case among themselves or with anyone else or to permit anyone to discuss it with them, not to read newspaper articles about the case, and not to listen to radio or television reports concerning the case during the recess of the court.

5. The publication of newspapers containing articles about a case on trial which are distributed after the trial has begun would not be calculated to come to the attention of the jurors trying the case, where the trial court is required to keep the jurors together until the conclusion of the trial, or, if he permits them to disperse, to admonish them not to read articles in the newspapers about the case. The publisher could not reasonably have anticipated that publication and distribution of his papers under such circumstances would interfere with a fair and impartial trial of the case, and he would not be in contempt of court for so doing.

This case originated on a citation issued by Judge Durwood T. Pye of the Superior Court of the Atlanta Circuit, against Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., directing it to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of court for publishing and distributing in Atlanta two newspaper articles, one appearing in the Atlanta Journal the afternoon of June 2, 1959, and the other in the Atlanta Constitution the following morning, during the trial in Fulton Superior Court of James Meriwether, charged with robbery, each article containing information about the defendant Meriwether as to previous convictions, describing him as 'formerly Georgia's number one wanted man,' selfadmitted hold-up artist, etc., all of which would not have been admissible as evidence in the trial of his case. The facts are more fully set out in the decision of the Court of Appeals in Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 101 Ga.App. 105, 113 S.E.2d 148, where that court reversed the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant's general demurrer to the citation.

After the remittitur from the Court of Appeals was returned to the trial court and before and without making the judgment of the Court of Appeals its judgment, the trial court amended the original citation by adding thereto an allegation that the original citation was not brought under Code § 24-105, and by adding six additional counts to the citation. In the additional counts, the citation alleged that Code § 24-105 violated numerous provisions of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and alleged that copies of the newspapers containing the articles were distributed in the Fulton County courthouse during the trial of the case and that the reporters who wrote the articles and who were the agents of the defendant gathered information for the articles in the Fulton County courthouse and were in the court room during the trial of the case; that during the first day of the trial the court heard testimony of eight witnesses for the State and that before recessing at noon the court warned the jury not to discuss the case among themselves or to permit anyone to discuss the case with them during the trial of the case, which warning the court called to their attention prior to the recess of the case at the close of the day; that when the court reconvened the next day; after hearing evidence that certain of the jurors during the recess read the articles appearing in the papers, the court declared a mistrial in the case; that, after the court declared the mistrial, the defendant's agents and reporters were in the court room and interrogated the jurors; that 150 additional jurors were drawn and appeared for service the next day; and that, of the 150 jurors, the jury was selected with only seventeen unexamined and that many of them disqualified because of bias and prejudice from having read the articles.

The defendant filed a general demurrer to the amended citation and motion to strike, which was overruled and the case proceeded to trial. After hearing evidence which substantiated the allegations of the citation, the court found the defendant in contempt of court and fined it $20,000.

To the judgment of the court overruling the general demurrer and motion to strike and judgment finding the defendant in contempt of court, the defendant excepts.

B P. Gambrell, John E. Dougherty, W. Glen Harlan, Edward W. Killorin, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

MOBLEY, Justice.

1. This court denied certiorari in the original case (Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 101 Ga.App. 105, 113 S.E.2d 148, 152, supra) because we were of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was correct. However, we did not agree with the reason upon which the decision was based. The Court of Appeals held that the respondent's demurrer to the citation should have been sustained because the citation did not allege misbehavior of the respondent in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, as required by Code § 24-105. The Court of Appeals stated 'that a publication made in a newspaper about a pending case cannot be contempt of court, so as to be summarily punishable, so long as Code § 24-105 * * * remains unamended by the General Assembly.' The ruling of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with the ruling of this court in the unanimous opinion of Bradley v. State, 111 Ga. 168(1) (2), 36 S.E. 630, 50 L.R.A. 691, which held: '1. The power to punish contempts is inherent in every court of record. If the court is created by the constitution, the legislature cannot, without express constitutional authority, define what are contempts and declare that the court shall have jurisdiction over no acts except those specified.

'2. The provision of the constitution which declares that ...