PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., WTWV, INC., D/B/A WTVX-34, AND NEWS AND SUN-SENTINEL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, D/B/A FORT LAUDERDALE NEWS AND SUN-SENTINEL, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE CARL H. HARPER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners, newspaper and television publishers, challenged a trial court's exclusion of the press and public from a chambers conference. The court held that the chambers conference was not a judicial proceeding at which the press had a right to be present, and therefore the exclusion did not violate First Amendment rights to access.
The chambers conference was not a judicial proceeding at which the press and public were entitled to be present. Chambers conferences are distinct from trial proceedings, and judges are not required to allow public or press access to such conferences.
[1] A chambers conference between a judge and counsel, the purpose of which is to apprise counsel of an anonymous communication concerning a party or the case, is not a judic…
[2] A judge's action in advising counsel of an anonymous communication criticizing a party or suggesting improper conduct is ethically appropriate.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Thus, when engaging in interchanges at the bench, the trial judge is not required to allow public or press intrusion upon the huddle. Nor does this opinion intimate that the judges are restricted in their ability to conduct conferences in chambers, inasmuch as such conferences are distinct from trial proceedings.”
Establishes that chambers conferences are not subject to the same public access requirements as trial proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judge held a chambers conference with counsel to advise them that his secretary had received an anonymous telephone call criticizing one of the part…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, two newspaper publishers and a television station, filed a petition, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d), to review the trial court action that, petitioners contend, excluded the press and public from access to a judicial proceeding.
We have considered the petition and responses and have read the transcript of the chambers conference from which the press was excluded. It is our considered judgment that the conference between the judge and counsel was not a judicial proceeding at which the press and public were entitled to be present. The purpose of the conference was to enable the judge to apprise counsel of the fact that his secretary had received an anonymous telephone call criticizing one of the parties and suggesting that the court file in the pending case should not be sealed. The judge’s action in advising counsel of the anonymous call was ethically appropriate. To require that the statement of an anonymous caller denigrat- ing one of the parties be made public would serve no useful purpose. We would categorize the subject of this conference as being within the purview of those chambers matters referred to in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980), wherein it is stated:
Thus, when engaging in interchanges at the bench, the trial judge is not required to allow public or press intrusion upon the huddle. Nor does this opinion intimate that the judges are restricted in their ability to conduct conferences in chambers, inasmuch as such conferences are distinct from trial proceedings. 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, at 2839, n.23, 65 L.Ed.2d 973.
Notice and a hearing are only required when the court decides to close a proceeding at which the press is entitled to be present. This is hot one of those proceedings.
Although all the parties discuss an additional question involving the requested sealing of the wife’s deposition without the McIntosh due process procedures, petitioners contend that they are not requesting review of that motion, which the court has not yet acted upon. Accordingly, we will treat only the single question presented by petitioners.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris Publ'g Grp., LLC v. State of Fla. & Michael D. Dunn, 136 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tr.2d 778, 980 P. 2d 337, 363 (1999). A functional analysis is necessary to determine whether the closed proceeding is part of the trial process to which the First Amendment right of access attaches. See, e.g., Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Harper, 417 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that chambers conference, the purpose of which was to inform counsel that judge’s secretary had received an anonymous telephone call relating to one of the parties, was not a judicial proceeding at which the press and pu…
-
Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. DOE, 460 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ed the hearing a judicial proceeding. This court has previously held that a closure hearing must be conducted only when the court contemplates closing a proceeding at which the press is entitled to be present. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Harper, 417 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The mere presence of a judge, however, does not establish the presumptive openness of a proceeding. We would categorize the subject of this conference as being within the purview of those chambers matters referred to in [*408]…
Authorities Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980)