STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN S. FREUND, JOHN TRENT, PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING COMPANY, MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, AND THE FORT LAUDERDALE NEWS AND SUN SENTINEL, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 4th DCA | 1985-07-31
No. 85-687
HERSEY, C.J., and HURLEY, J., concur., LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
473 So. 2d 274 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court permitted media attendance at pretrial depositions in a criminal proceeding pursuant to our sister court’s holding in Short v. Gaylord Broadcasting Co., 462 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Since then this court announced its en banc decision in Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), which takes the opposite view from Short and which must govern the case at bar. Accordingly, we grant the writ and quash the trial court’s order on the authority of our en banc decision in Burk.

WRIT ISSUED.

HERSEY, C.J., and HURLEY, J., concur. LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence
LETTS, Judge,

LETTS, Judge,

specially concurring.

I agree that Burk, supra, governs this case. However, while considering the particular matter now before us, I realize that the statement by the Florida Supreme Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982), that “[tjhere is no first amendment protection of the press’ rights to attend pretrial hearings” is suspect, if it relies; as it appears to, on Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979). If the Florida court continues to be of the same mind when it addresses the issue of pretrial depositions, it should not, as I did in Burk when I quoted Lems, rely on Gannett. The Gannett decision, while admittedly equivocal, is clarified in a later United States Supreme Court case where it is confirmed that the media has in fact a “qualified” first amendment right to attend pretrial suppression hearings. Waller v. Georgia, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984).

I would also certify this particular case. True, to do so should be an unnecessary exercise because of Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). However, the issue is certainly of great public importance, the certification has been requested, and it makes it that much easier for the litigants if we do so.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 506 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1987)
    …PER CURIAM. This case, State v. Freund, 473 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), is one of a series of cases presenting issues which were certified as questions of great public importance by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We tentatively accepted jurisdiction to ensur…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw