POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, FLORIDA, INC., THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY AND WBC BROADCASTING CORP., PETITIONERS, ,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FRANCISCO FUSTER ESCALONA A/K/A FRANK FUSTER, ILEANA FUSTER AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT NEWMAN, RESPONDENTS
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.
Media outlets challenged a trial court order closing pre-trial discovery depositions of children in a criminal case to the public and media. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that there is no constitutional or procedural right to attend such depositions, but certified the issue for Supreme Court review due to its public importance.
There is no constitutional, procedural, or substantive right of the public or media to attend pre-trial discovery depositions in criminal cases. Therefore, the three-pronged closure test established in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. State and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis does not apply to such depositions.
[1] The public and media have no constitutional, procedural, or substantive right to attend pre-trial discovery depositions in criminal cases.
[2] The three-pronged test for closure established in Miami Herald Publishing Co. …
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“there is no constitutional, procedural or substantive right of the public or the media to attend pre-trial discovery depositions in criminal cases”
The core holding establishing that discovery depositions are not subject to First Amendment access rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA criminal case against Francisco Fuster Escalona and Ileana Fuster was pending in Dade County Circuit Court. The trial court entered an order preclud…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This is an emergency petition filed herein by certain media parties pursuant to Fla.R. App.P. 9.100(d) seeking review of a trial court order entered below which, in effect, precludes the public and media from attending pre-trial discovery depositions which may be taken of children in the criminal case of State of Florida v. Francisco Fuster Escalona, also known as Frank Fus-ter, and Ileana Fuster, 84-19728, presently pending before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County, Florida. The order; however, does not preclude the public and media from inspecting such depositions when same are filed in the court file in this cause.
Based on the indistinguishable and controlling authority of Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (en banc), we deny the instant petition upon a holding that there is no constitutional, procedural or substantive right of the public or the media to attend pre-trial discovery depositions in criminal cases, and that, accordingly, the three-pronged test for closure established in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. State, 363 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982), is entirely inapplicable to this case. In view of the obvious public importance of this case, however, we hereby certify, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution, that this decision passes upon the following question of great public importance so as to permit further review of this case in the Florida Supreme Court, to wit: is the print and electronic media entitled to notice of, and the opportunity and right to attend, pre-trial discovery depositions in criminal cases.
Petition denied.
HENDRY, Judge,
dissents.
I respectfully dissent on the authority of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Mor- [*345] phonios, 467 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Post-Newsweek Stations v. State, 510 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1987)…EHRLICH, Justice. We have for our review Post-Newsweek Stations v. State, 474 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the district court certified the following question of great public importance: [I]S THE PRINT AND ELECTRONIC MEDIA ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF, AND THE OPPORTUNITY AND RIGHT TO ATTEND, PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY DEPOSITIONS IN CRIM…
-
Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Honorable Robert L. McCRARY, Jr., 497 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…n of information in a different context. Palm Beach concluded that “pretrial discovery depositions are but a part of pretrial preparation and as such are not a proper subject for press intrusion.” Id. at 579. Accord Post-Newsweek Stations v. State, 474 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (no constitutional, procedural or substantive right of the public or the media to attend pre-trial depositions in criminal cases, accordingly, the three-pronged Lewis test for determining the appropriateness of closure is inapplic…
Authorities Cited
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Royce R. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. State of Fla. & Peter Joseph Salerno, 363 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Florida Freedom Newspapers v. Stacey M. Karliss & the State of Fla., 471 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios, 467 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)