State v. Bianchi, 46062
| Citation | 593 P.2d 1330,92 Wn.2d 91 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 46062,46062 |
| Parties | , 4 Media L. Rep. 2627 The STATE of Washington, Petitioner, v. Kenneth BIANCHI, Petitioner, Federated Publications, Inc., d/b/a Bellingham Herald, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Brett, Brinn & Daugert & Erickson, Dean Brett, Bellingham, David S. McEachran, Pros. Atty., Bellingham, for petitioner.
John Ludwigson, Bellingham, for respondent.
Both the defense and the prosecution appeal from a superior court order permitting The Bellingham Herald to intervene for limited purposes in a highly publicized criminal action. We hold that such intervention in a criminal proceeding is improper.
In January 1979, the defendant, Kenneth A. Bianchi, was arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Interest in the case was heightened by speculation in the press as to a connection between the defendant and unsolved homicides in another state. In order to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial, both the prosecution and the defense moved the superior court for a protective order sealing the Affidavit of Probable Cause Determination. The motion was granted. The Bellingham Herald then moved to intervene for the limited purpose of contesting the order limiting access of the public and the newspaper to the Affidavit of Probable Cause Determination. The superior court granted the Herald's motion.
In deciding to allow the Herald to intervene for limited purposes, the superior court appears to have been primarily motivated by a desire to provide a forum for the Herald to assert its First Amendment rights. We agree that the press has important and valid reasons for seeking access to records in criminal proceedings. It is generally through the news media that the citizenry is kept informed as to the conduct of the judicial system, including the administration of criminal justice. Of course, the Herald's First Amendment rights must be balanced with the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The issue in this case, however, is not the striking of a balance between the competing interests, but rather a determination of the means available to the press for securing a forum in which to assert First Amendment rights when court records are ordered sealed. Intervention in a pending criminal proceeding is not a proper means of securing such a forum.
There is no rule, statute, or precedent in this state that would allow a third party to intervene in a criminal proceeding. The Washington Rules of Criminal Procedure make no provision for such intervention. Intervention of right is provided for in civil cases only if the intervening party claims "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action." Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 24. The only purpose of a criminal trial is the legal determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence. The Herald has no direct interest in this determination to justify its intervention and the disruption of the pending criminal proceedings inherent in the intervention process. The Herald's remedy must therefore lie in a separate action for declaratory judgment, mandamus, or prohibition.
Other jurisdictions faced with this issue have reached the same conclusion. The Fourth Circuit, considering a similar situation, treated an appeal by members of the press as a petition for mandamus and denied relief. Central S. C. Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists v. United States District Court, 551 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1977). There, the district court judge had entered a pretrial order in a highly publicized criminal trial against a United States Senator. This order regulated the conduct of participants in the trial, particularly as related to contacts with the press, and the seating of the press in the courtroom. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the Society's attempted appeal from the district court's order, stating at pages 563, 565:
It is clear that the Society should not participate in a case to which it is not a party. Even in civil cases, intervention requires an interest in the transaction or property before the court. FRCP 24. But the Society has no interest in the determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence to justify its intervention. . . . Since we find nothing in the criminal law or rules permitting the Society to intervene in this case, to introduce collateral...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Figueroa
...v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); State v. Cianci, 496 A.2d 139, 145-46 (R.I.1985); State v. Bianchi, 92 Wash.2d 91, 593 P.2d 1330 (1979) (en banc). I am even less inclined to torture both our rules of civil and criminal procedure by seeking to transplant a clon......
-
U.S. v. Hubbard
...91 (1978) (no error to have permitted post-trial intervention by non-party asserting interest in seized property); State v. Bianchi, 92 Wash.2d 91, 593 P.2d 1330 (1979) (error to have permitted non-party to intervene to protest gag order).68 The Church's position on the merits of the unseal......
-
Clark v. Baines
...shall grant relief in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of the parties. 49. Cf. State v. Bianchi, 92 Wash.2d 91, 92, 593 P.2d 1330 (1979) (only State and accused may be parties in criminal 50. See Brin, 89 Wash.App. at 821-22, 951 P.2d 291. In making this s......
-
State v. Parvin
...sealing is sought to protect that interest, only a “likelihood of jeopardy” must be shown. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d at 62 , [State v. Bianchi, 92 Wash.2d 91] 593 P.2d 1330 [ (1979) ]. See Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 400, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2916, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (Powell, J., conc......