Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc

Decision Date18 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 76-944,76-944
Citation98 S.Ct. 1306,435 U.S. 589,55 L.Ed.2d 570
PartiesRichard NIXON, Petitioner, v. WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

During the criminal trial of several of petitioner ex-President's former advisers on charges, inter alia, of conspiring to obstruct justice in connection with the so-called Watergate investigation, some 22 hours of tape recordings made of conversations in petitioner's offices in the White House and Executive Office Building were played to the jury and the public in the courtroom, and the reels of the tapes were admitted into evidence. The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with transcripts, which were not admitted as evidence but were widely reprinted in the press. At the close of the trial, in which four of the defendants were convicted, and after an earlier unsuccessful attempt over petitioner's objections to obtain court permission to copy, broadcast, and sell to the public portions of the tapes, respondent broadcasters petitioned for immediate access to the tapes. The District Court denied the petitions on the grounds that since the convicted defendants had filed notices of appeal, their rights would be prejudiced if respondents' petitions were granted, and that since the transcripts had apprised the public of the tapes' contents, the public's "right to know" did not overcome the need to safeguard the defendants' rights on appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the mere possibility of p ejudice to defendants' rights did not out-weigh the public's right of access, that the common-law right of access to judicial records required the District Court to release the tapes in its custody, and that therefore the District Court abused its discretion in refusing immediate access. Held:

1. Considering all the circumstances, the common-law right of access to judicial records does not authorize release of the tapes in question from the District Court's custody. Pp. 597-608.

(a) The common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute, but the decision whether to permit access is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. Pp. 597-599.

(b) Because of the congressionally prescribed avenue of public access to the tapes provided by the Presidential Recordings and Mate- rials Preservation Act, whose existence is a decisive element in the proper exercise of discretion with respect to release of the tapes, it is not necessary to weigh the parties' competing arguments for and against release as though the District Court were the only potential source of information regarding these historical materials, and the presence of an alternative means of public access tips the scales in favor of denying release. Pp. 599-608.

2. The release of the tapes is not required by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. The question here is not whether the press must be permitted access to public information to which the public generally has access, but whether the tapes, to which the public has never had physical access, must be made available for copying. There is in this case no question of a truncated flow of information to the public, as the contents of the tapes were given wide publicity by all elements of the media, Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328, distinguished, and under the First Amendment the press has no right to information about a trial superior to that of the general public. Pp. 608-610.

3. Nor is release of the tapes required by the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. While public understanding of the highly publicized trial may remain incomplete in the absence of the ability to listen to the tapes and form judgments as to their meaning, the same could be said of a live witness' testimony, yet there is no constitutional right to have such testimony recorded and broadcast. The guarantee of a public trial confers no special benefit on the press nor does it require that the trial, or any part of it, be broadcast live or on tape to the public, but such guarantee is satisfied by the opportunity of the public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed. P. 610.

179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252, reversed and remanded.

William H. Jeffress, Jr., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Floyd Abrams, New York City, and Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the District Court for the District of Columbia should release to respondents certain tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of petitioner's former advisers. Respondents wish to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court's refusal to permit immediate copying of the tapes was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 551 F.2d 1252 (1976). We granted certiorari, 430 U.S. 944, 97 S.Ct. 1578, 51 L.Ed.2d 791 (1977), and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I

On July 16, 1973, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities revealed that petitioner, then President of the United States, had maintained a system for tape recording conversations in the White House Oval Office and in his private office in the Executive Office Building. Hearings on Watergate and Related Activities Before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 2074-2076 (1973). A week later, the Watergate Special Prosecutor issued a subpoena duces tecum directing petitioner to produce before a federal grand jury tape recordings of eight meetings and one telephone conversation recorded in petitioner's offices. When petitioner refused to comply with the subpoena, the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered production of the recordings. In re Subpoena to Nixon, 360 F.Supp. 1, aff'd sub nom. Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 487 F.2d 700 (1973). In November 1973, petitioner submitted seven of the nine subpoenaed recordings and informed the Office of the Special Prosecutor that the other two were missing.

On March 1, 1974, the grand jury indicted seven individuals 1 for, among other things, conspiring to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation of the 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters. In preparation for this trial, styled United States v. Mitchell,2 the Special Prosecutor, on April 18, 1974, issued a second subpoena duces tecum, directing petitioner to produce tape recordings and documents relating to some 64 additional Presidential meetings and conversations. The District Court denied petitioner's motions to quash. United States v. Mitchell, 377 F.Supp. 1326 (1974). This Court granted certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeals and affirmed. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). In accordance with our decision, the subpoenaed tapes were turned over to the District Court for in camera inspection. The court arranged to have copies made of the relevant and admissible portions. It retained one copy and gave the other to the Special Prosecutor.3 The trial began on October 1, 1974, before Judge Sirica. During its course, some 22 hours of taped conversations were played for the jury and the public in the courtroom. The reels of tape containing conversations played for the jury were entered into evidence. The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with earphones and with transcripts prepared by the Special Prosecutor. The transcripts were not admitted as evidence, but were widely reprinted in the press.

Six weeks after the trial had begun, respondent broadcasters 4 filed a motion before Judge Sirica, seeking permission to copy, broadcast, and sell to the public the portions of the tapes played at trial. Petitioner opposed the application. Because United States v. Mitchell was consuming all of Judge Sirica's time, this matter was transferred to Judge Gesell.

On December 5, 1974, Judge Gesell held that a common-law privilege of public access to judicial records permitted respondents to obtain copies of exhibits in the custody of the clerk, including the tapes in question. United States v. Mitchell, 386 F.Supp. 639, 641. Judge Gesell minimized petitioner's opposition to respondents' motion, declaring that neither his alleged property interest in the tapes nor his asserted executive privilege sufficed to prevent release of recordings already publicly aired and available, in transcription, to the world at large. Id., at 642. Judge Gesell cautioned, however, against "overcommercialization of the evidence." Id., at 643. And because of potential administrative and mechanical difficulties, he prohibited copying until the trial was over. Ibid. He requested that the parties submit proposals for access and copying procedures that would minimize overcommercialization and administrative inconvenience at that time. Ibid. In an order of January 8, 1975, Judge Gesell rejected respondents' joint proposals as insufficient. Id., at 643-644. Noting the close of the Mitchell trial, he transferred the matter back to Judge Sirica.

On April 4, 1975, Judge Sirica denied without prejudice respondents' petitions for immediate access to the tapes. United States v. Mitchell, 397 F.Supp. 186. Observing that all four men convicted in the Mitchell trial had filed notices of appeal, he declared that their rights could be prejudiced if the petitions were granted. Immediate access to the tapes might "result in the manufacture of permanent phonograph records and tape recordings, perhaps with commentary by journalists or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5363 cases
  • McCain v. United States, Corr. Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-92
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • 17 Marzo 2015
    ...Motion to Dismiss. The decision as to whether to seal documents filed with the court is a matter of discretion. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (trial court has discretion to determine access to court documents "in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of t......
  • Courthouse News Serv. v. Yamasaki
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 9 Mayo 2018
    ...right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns , 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). That right derives from the interest of the public and the press "to keep a watchful eye" on the workings of......
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 21 Agosto 2009
    ...178, 180 (4th Cir.1988)); see Under Seal v. Under Seal, 1994 WL 283977, at *2 (4th Cir.1994); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public reco......
  • Bonnichsen v. U.S., Dept. of Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 27 Junio 1997
    ...that governs most access claims. However, the issue still surfaces occasionally. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 609, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1317-18, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (rejecting media request for copies of tapes, in part because the contents of the tapes had alre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
47 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Guide to Protecting and Litigating Trade Secrets
    • 27 Junio 2012
    ...(E.D. Va. 2001), 42, 136 Nikolouzos v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 162 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App. 2005), 191n11 Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), 149 North Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber, 188 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999), 163 Northeast Data Sys., Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Computer Sy......
  • TRANSPARENCY IN PLEA BARGAINING.
    • United States
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...87 (2d Cir. 1988). (81) Beale & King Memorandum, supra note 71, at 220 (citing authorities). (82) See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (83) See, e.g., United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 163 (D.C. Cir. 1997); United States v. Ring, 47 F. Supp. 3d 38, 41-42 (D.D.C.......
  • National Security and Access, a Structural Perspective
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy No. 11-3, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...a Middle Ground, 1 CORNELL POL’Y REV. 57, 65-66 (2011) (recognizing the limited scope of Egan). 285. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 286. Bulk Collection Opinions & Orders, slip op. at 2 (FISA Ct. Nov. 9, 2017). 287. Id. at 16. 288. Id. 289. Id. Later in the same c......
  • The Supreme Court of Texas from 1989-1998: independence determined by six-year terms.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 62 No. 4, June 1999
    • 22 Junio 1999
    ...(161) See Dallas Morning News, 842 S.W.2d at 658-60 (noting that the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) that the right of freedom of the press "is not paramount over all other (162) See id. at 659-60 (stating that some matters "clearly outw......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 48, No. 18. May 5, 2018
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...260 F.3d 217, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2001), citing Richmond Newspapers v. Va., 448 U.S. 555, 578 (1980); Nixon v. Warner Communica- tions, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Antar, 38 F.3d at 1359-60; Press-Enterprise Super. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1986) [hereinafter Press-Enterprise II]; Leu......
  • Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 38. September 21, 2019
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Register
    • Invalid date
    ...260 F.3d 217, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2001), citing Richmond Newspapers v. Va., 448 U.S. 555, 578 (1980); Nixon v. Warner Communica- tions, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Antar, 38 F.3d at 1359-60; Press-Enterprise Super. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1986) [hereinafter Press-Enterprise II]; Leu......

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