People v. Burton
| Decision Date | 06 May 1993 |
| Parties | , 21 Media L. Rep. 1504 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony BURTON, Respondent. Ottaway Newspapers Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Van De Water & Van De Water (James E. Nelson and Juliana Maugeri, of counsel), Poughkeepsie, for appellant.
Stephen F. Lungen, Dist. Atty., Monticello, for People of State of N.Y., respondent.
Before WEISS, P.J., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, LEVINE and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (Kane, J.), entered July 22, 1992, which denied the application of Ottaway Newspapers Inc. for access to court documents in a criminal action.
Ottaway Newspapers Inc. is the publisher of the Times Herald Record (hereinafter the Record), a newspaper of general circulation in Sullivan County and surrounding counties. The Record had reported extensively regarding the brutal murder in early July 1991 of an elderly Hasidic husband and wife who had just recently moved into a bungalow colony in Sullivan County for that summer. An intensive search for the killer was launched involving multiple police agencies which ultimately led to the arrest about six weeks later of defendant, a kitchen worker at a resort hotel near the bungalow colony where the victims were staying. The case engendered widespread notoriety and news media attention in both Sullivan County and in Brooklyn, where the couple had been permanent residents. Renewed media focus on the case occurred in September 1991 when an indictment was handed up charging defendant not only with the two murders, but also the forcible rape of the female victim.
By June 1992, the case against defendant had proceeded through the pretrial motion and discovery stages to the point where hearings were scheduled on the admissibility of any inculpatory statements and of DNA evidence allegedly identifying defendant as the perpetrator. Defendant's trial was scheduled for the early fall following the completion of those hearings. At that point, one of the Record's reporters assigned to cover the proceedings against defendant sought access to County Court's file on the case. Access was refused, purportedly pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which creates a right of privacy for the victims of sexual offenses and prohibits the disclosure of any documents identifying the victim of a sex offense. The Record then brought the instant application for access to the court files in defendant's case, subject to redaction of the rape victim's name and any identifying information. The People and defendant opposed the application, claiming that disclosure is prohibited by Civil Rights Law § 50-b and would deprive defendant of a fair trial. They also requested closed hearings on the admissibility of defendant's confession and the DNA evidence.
By decision and order of June 30, 1992, County Court denied the request to close the hearing on the DNA evidence, concluding that there had been no showing of any substantial probability of prejudicial publicity that would deny defendant a fair trial, as required by Matter of Associated Press v. Bell, 70 N.Y.2d 32, 517 N.Y.S.2d 444, 510 N.E.2d 313, in order to overcome the First Amendment rights of the public and the news media to open pretrial hearings in criminal cases. However, by decision and order dated July 21, 1992, County Court denied the Record's application for access to the court file in the case and specifically directed the sealing of various documents contained therein, including crime scene descriptions, autopsy reports and defendant's statements supplied pursuant to CPL 710.30. The Record now appeals.
There should be a reversal. The People argue, with commendable zeal, that Civil Rights Law § 50-b should be construed to protect against the injury to the personal and religious sensibilities of the murdered rape victim's family that would result from public disclosure of the details of the sexual assault committed against her. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the statutory language of Civil Rights Law § 50-b or its legislative history suggesting any legislative intent to create statutory rights beyond the personal right of a sex offense victim to confidentiality of his or her identity. Thus, we are constrained to conclude that, as a result of the victim's death and the previous disclosure of her identity thereafter, Civil Rights Law § 50-b cannot be invoked to justify nonaccess to the court files in the instant case. A broader construction of Civil Rights Law § 50-b flatly mandating denial of public access to court documents in all sex offense cases would raise serious constitutional questions under the First Amendment (see, Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 608-610, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2620-2622, 73 L.Ed.2d 248). We should avoid such an interpretation of the statute if possible (see, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 143, 149, 459 N.Y.S.2d 743, 446 N.E.2d 428; People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 400, 369 N.Y.S.2d 50, 330 N.E.2d 26).
Nor is denial of access to the court files sought by the Record sustainable on the ground that it is required to avoid prejudicing defendant's right to a fair trial. County Court's decision and the submissions by the People and defendant upon which it was based are not explicit in identifying the manner in which the documents ordered sealed became part of the court files. To the extent that the documents were submitted in connection with contested motions, the hearing of which were or would be accessible to the news media and the public, a qualified First Amendment right of access to them would also apply (see, United States v. Haller, 837 F.2d 84, 87; Matter of New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114, cert. denied 485 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 1272, 99 L.Ed.2d 483). It would appear that at least some of the documents fall in that category. That being so, the applicants for sealing the records were required to demonstrate, and County Court was required to make specific findings supporting its conclusion, that (1) there is a substantial probability that defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that sealing would prevent, and (2) reasonable less restrictive alternatives to sealing cannot adequately protect defendant's fair trial rights ( see, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Ca. for Riverside County, 478 U.S. 1, 12-13, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial