State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
| Parties | , 9 Media L. Rep. 1585 STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James E. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James J. KOEDATICH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
M. Virginia Barta, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-appellant James E. Williams (Joseph H. Rodriguez, Public Defender, attorney; Theodore V. Fishman, Deputy Public Defender and J. Stewart Husid, First Asst. Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; M. Virginia Barta and Matthew Astore, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
Howard F. Cerny, a member of the New York bar, New York City, for defendant-appellant James J. Koedatich (John C. Tarantino, Orange, attorney).
Irwin I. Kimmelman, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent (Philip S. Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor (State v. Williams), and Howard A. McGinn, Warren County Prosecutor (State v. Koedatich), attorneys; Debra L. Stone, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel and on brief; and Kathryn Flicker, First Asst. Mercer County Prosecutor, of counsel).
Thomas J. Cafferty, New Brunswick, for amicus curiae N.J. Press Ass'n (Seiffert, Frisch, McGimpsey & Cafferty, New Brunswick, attorneys; Thomas J. Cafferty and A.F. McGimpsey, Jr., New Brunswick, on the brief).
Frances Goldmark, Trenton, for amicus curiae The Trenton Times Corp. (Jamieson, McCardell, Moore, Peskin & Spicer, attorneys; Frances Goldmark, Richard D. Martinson and Andrew J. Shedlock, III, Trenton, on the brief).
Edward F. Lamb, Newark, for intervenor Newark Morning Ledger Co., Publisher of the Star-Ledger (Robinson, Wayne, Levin, Riccio & La Sala, Newark, attorneys; Peter C. Gould, New York City, a member of the New York bar, of counsel; Edward F. Lamb, Donald A. Robinson, New York City, and Joseph F. Lagrotteria, Roseland, on the brief).
Frederick L. Whitmer, Morristown, for intervenors The New York Times Co. and CBS Inc. (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, attorneys; George Freeman and Allen Y. Shaklan, New York City, members of the New York bar, of counsel; Frederick L. Whitmer, Peter A. Scarpato, Morristown, and Peter M. Laughlin, on the brief).
Gerald A. Hughes, Trenton, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Capitol City Pub. Co., Inc. t/a The Trentonian.
Martin Klughaupt, Passaic, submitted a letter brief on behalf of intervenors The Herald-News and The Daily Advance.
Aron M. Schwartz, Morristown, submitted a brief on behalf of intervenors Morristown Daily Record, Inc. and Easton Pub. Co. (Vogel & Chait, Morristown, attorneys; Aron M. Schwartz and Lorraine C. Staples, Morristown, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
These cases pose the question of whether and under what circumstances pretrial proceedings in a criminal prosecution can be closed to the public and the press. In each of these cases, the defendant has been charged with murder under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice and faces the death penalty. Defendants claim that the public and the press should be excluded from certain of their pretrial proceedings, specifically a probable cause hearing and bail applications. Defendants assert that the adverse publicity generated by the conduct of these pretrial proceedings in open court will prejudice their constitutional rights to a fair trial before an impartial jury.
This Court has never fully considered the permissibility of the closure of pretrial proceedings in a criminal prosecution. In State v. Obstein, 52 N.J. 516, 247 A.2d 5 (1968), the Court directed, without extended discussion, that a bail hearing in a capital case be held in camera to safeguard against "possible prejudice" of defendant's plenary trial through public circulation of "obviously incomplete but necessarily incriminating evidence." Id. at 522, 247 A.2d 5. However, major developments have occurred in the law regarding public access to court proceedings since our Obstein decision, including several United States Supreme Court decisions that have addressed the constitutionality of the closure of criminal proceedings. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, --- U.S ----, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980); Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979); see also Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976). This Court also dealt with this subject in State v. Allen, 73 N.J. 132, 373 A.2d 377 (1977). These developments prompt our reconsideration of the standards for determining whether criminal pretrial proceedings can be closed in order to overcome prejudicial publicity.
We now determine that the public and the press have a protectible constitutional interest in access to all pretrial proceedings in the prosecution of a criminal case. This constitutional interest is based upon both the federal and State constitutions and must be given appropriate weight when counterbalanced with a defendant's constitutional right to a trial before an impartial jury. Accordingly, we hold that all pretrial proceedings in criminal prosecutions shall be open to the public and the press. In the context of these cases, the only exception to this general rule will arise in those instances in which the trial court is clearly satisfied that as a result of adverse pretrial publicity, a realistic likelihood exists that a defendant will be unable to secure a fair trial before an impartial jury if the pretrial proceeding is conducted in open court.
In State v. Williams, the defendant, James Williams, was arrested on January 2, 1983 and charged with purposely and knowingly causing the death of Beverly Mitchell. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-2(a). Three days earlier, the victim had been found slain at the Bellevue Care Center in Trenton, Mercer County, where she had been employed. She had been stabbed repeatedly and was the probable victim of a sexual assault.
The Public Defender who represented Williams requested a bail hearing and subsequently moved that it be held in camera. Defendant contended that massive adverse pretrial publicity, including that which would be generated by an open bail hearing would deprive him of a fair trial before an impartial jury. At a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the request of two local newspapers, the Trenton Times and The Trentonian, to be heard as amicus curiae, and after argument, denied defendant's motion to close the hearing. The court's oral ruling recognized the concern for selecting an impartial jury, but rejected the need for closure "because in the experience that I have had over a number of years in picking juries in cases, it appears that no matter how much publicity is involved, there are still individuals that are ready and available for a jury."
The defendant then sought emergent relief for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division. On this application, defendant filed affidavits containing samples of the newspaper publicity concerning the case. 1 The defendant's motion for leave to appeal was denied. Defendant's counsel immediately filed with this Court a motion for emergent relief seeking an in camera bail hearing. A stay of the bail hearing was issued on an emergency basis to permit the entire Court's consideration of the matter. The full Court then granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal and vacated the emergency stay. The Court entered an interim order remanding the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of conducting a bail hearing in camera and required the impoundment of the transcript of such proceeding. The bail hearing was conducted in camera and the trial court ordered that Williams continue to be held without bail. The transcript of the bail hearing remains impounded.
In State v. Koedatich, the defendant, James Koedatich, was arrested on January 18, 1983 and charged with the murder of Deidre O'Brien. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-2(a). The victim had been abducted while driving to her parents' home in Morris County on December 5, 1982 and was stabbed to death. Koedatich's bail was set at $250,000.
Defendant moved to exclude the media and the public from his upcoming probable cause hearing, contending that extensive pretrial publicity would prevent his having a fair trial. Several media organizations were granted leave to intervene in proceedings on the motion. After oral argument the trial court denied defendant's motion, relying principally on the case of State v. Joyce, 160 N.J.Super. 419, 390 A.2d 151 (Law Div.1978), aff'd sub nom. State v. DeBellis, 174 N.J.Super. 195, 413 A.2d 986 (App.Div.1980). The court initially found that defendant failed to demonstrate that public access to the proceedings would constitute a serious and imminent threat to the integrity of the trial. Although the court recognized the extensive press coverage of the case in the New York and northern New Jersey metropolitan area, it held that defendant had failed to provide any factual basis to support a substantial probability of prejudice in Warren County, where the case will be tried and which is "somewhat removed from the center of pretrial publicity." 2 The court also found that defendant had failed to meet his burden to prove that a fair trial could not be ensured by other alternatives, such as temporary adjournment of the trial, change of venue, a foreign jury, searching voir dire and emphatic and clear jury instructions.
Defendant made an application to the Appellate Division for emergent relief to grant his motion for leave to appeal. Prior to a decision by the Appellate Division, this Court directly certified the matter pursuant to R. 2:12-1 and granted the motion for leave to appeal. Koedatich subsequently moved before this Court that his pending bail reduction hearing also be closed. The Court issued an interim order granting defendant's motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Johnson
...guarantees each criminal defendant the right to a trial by animpartial jury free of outside influences). See also State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983) ("it has long been recognized under the federal Constitution that a defendant is entitled to a jury that is free of outside influence......
-
Perez v. Steven D'Ilio & the Attorney Gen. of N.J.
...Amendment guarantees each criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury free of outside influences). Accord State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983) ("it has long been recognized under the federal Constitution that a defendant is entitled to a jury that is free of outside ......
-
Vargas v. Warren
...will decide the case according to the evidence and arguments presented in court in the course of the criminal trial itself." State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 60 (1983). Thus, when a jury is potentially contaminated by outside influences, the trial judge must take action to assure that the jur......
-
State v. Bellamy
...that a change of venue was "necessary to overcome the realistic likelihood of prejudice from pretrial publicity." State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 67 n.13 (1983). Absent any proffer by defendant, we are unable to determine if the alleged pretrial publicity simply reported the facts of the cas......