Steinle v. Lollis, 21989
| Decision Date | 15 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21989,21989 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 10 Media L. Rep. 1255, 9 Media L. Rep. 2487 Gregg STEINLE and Multimedia, Inc., Appellants, v. Harold V. LOLLIS, Magistrate of Greenville County, Respondent. |
David L. Freeman and Carl F. Muller, of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, Greenville, for appellants.
Joseph Earle and Deborah Westbrook, Greenville, Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles H. Richardson, Columbia, for respondent.
This appeal is from an order of the circuit court affirming the action of the respondent, a magistrate, who had closed a preliminary hearing to members of the press. Closure of the hearing had been granted upon a motion by the defendant (not a party to this appeal) to which there was no objection by the State. Appellants objected to the motion, and thereafter sought writs of mandamus and prohibition from the circuit court. Relief was denied on the ground that members of the press and public have no constitutional right of access to a pretrial proceeding and thus have no basis to challenge closure of a preliminary hearing.
The issue before the circuit court was appellant's claim of a "free press" right to access resting upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and upon the virtually identical language of Section 2, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution. By exception on this appeal it is additionally asserted that a constitutional right of access arises independently from Section 9, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution which declares that, "All courts shall be public ...."
We concur with the basic holding of the trial court. To date there does not exist any federally recognized constitutional right of access to preliminary hearings. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608. Indeed such right of access to trials as does exist is not absolute but subject to a proper balancing of competing interests. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 581, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2829, 65 L.Ed.2d 973, 992. In the case of State v. Sinclair, 275 S.C. 608, 274 S.E.2d 411, this Court adopted the rationale of these decisions.
We believe the trial court erred, however, in failing to fully apply the principles of Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra. The trial judge in that case made express findings that closure of a suppression hearing was demanded by "reasonable probability of prejudice" to the defendants, and the United States Supreme Court specifically noted this fact. 443 U.S. at 393, 99 S.Ct. at 2912, 61 L.Ed.2d at 629. The record on the present appeal is devoid of any finding either by the circuit court or the respondent magistrate that exclusion of the press was required to protect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Capital U-Drive-It, Inc., 26147.
...in failing to make specific findings that closure was necessary to protect rights of juveniles charged with murder); Steinle v. Lollis, 279 S.C. 375, 307 S.E.2d 230 (1983) (vacating magistrate's order excluding members of press from preliminary hearing in criminal case without specific find......
-
Byrd v. Irmo High School, 24399
...renders case moot, controversy presents a recurring dilemma which the Court will address to clarify the law); Steinle v. Lollis, 279 S.C. 375, 307 S.E.2d 230 (1983) (issues are not moot given that the underlying dispute is one capable of repetition yet evading review). We now clarify that t......
-
Ex Parte Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc.
...337, 338 (1985) (citing Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) and Steinle v. Lollis, 279 S.C. 375, 307 S.E.2d 230 (1983)). I. Justification for Appellants argue the trial court closed the suppression hearing without sufficient justification. We ......
-
State v. Blake
...agree the issue is moot but discuss the case for its precedential value and for the guidance of the bench and bar. In Steinle v. Lollis, 279 S.C. 375, 308 S.E.2d 230 (1983), the Supreme Court of South Carolina dealt with the rights of the public and the press to participate in pre-trial pro......