TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOHN LEWIS RUSSELL, III, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the district court opinion did not expressly and directly conflict with prior decisions on the same legal question. The case involved the standards for unsealing previously sealed court records in criminal proceedings.
The Florida Supreme Court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the district court's opinion did not present the necessary express and direct conflict required by article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. The court found that seeking to unseal records already closed is substantially different from seeking to close records that are open, and therefore the 'good cause' standard did not conflict with the Lewis three-prong test for closure.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a district court of appeal's decision that expressly and directly conflicts with another district court of appeal or the s…
[2] A party seeking to close criminal pretrial proceedings must prove that closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice, tha…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any decision of a district court of appeal that 'expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.'”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement from the Florida Constitution that must be met for Supreme Court review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Times Publishing Company and Miami Herald Publishing Company sought to unseal court records in a case involving John Lewis Russell, III. The distr…
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
We accepted review of Russell v. Times Publishing Co., 592 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA1992) (Russell II), based on the Times’ argument that the district court’s opinion conflicted with Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982), Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1988), and Russell v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 570 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Russell I). Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any decision of a district court of appeal that “expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.” Because Russell II does not present the necessary express and direct conflict, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.
In Lewis, we established a three-prong test for determining whether criminal pretrial proceedings should be closed to the general public. The Lewis test requires that the party seeking closure prove the following:
1. Closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice;
2. No alternatives are available, other than change of venue, which would protect a defendant's right to a fair trial; and,
3. Closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose.
Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 6. The Lewis test was designed to “address the problems of prejudicial pretrial publicity and the competing constitutional rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury for criminal defendants.” Barron, 531 So. 2d at 118. In Barron, where the issue involved closure of a civil divorce proceeding, we placed the burden of justifying closure on the party seeking closure. Id.
In both Lewis and Barron, Florida’s strong public policy in favor of open government warranted the placement of the burden on the party seeking closure. In the instant case, the district court held that properly sealed court records cannot be unsealed unless the party seeking to unseal the records shows “good cause.” Russell II, 592 So. 2d at 809. Seeking to close rec ords that are presumably open is a substantially different task than seeking to open records that have already been closed by a court. Therefore, we find that the district court’s placement of the burden and its “good cause” standard in the instant case does not conflict with the burden and tests articulated in Lewis and Barron. Furthermore, the district court’s opinion in the instant case does not conflict with the Second District Court of Appeals’ decision in Russell L
*
In Russell /, as in the instant case, the court placed the burden of proof on the party seeking to reopen sealed records.
Because we do not find any conflict to support this Court’s jurisdiction, the petition for review is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
*
Nor is Russell II in conflict with cases decided subsequent to that decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke H. Scott, M.D. v. Nelson, 697 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…d if not, the court must use the least restrictive means to accomplish its purpose. In the initial closure determina [*209] tion, the burden of proof is on the party seeking closure. Id. at 119. Subsequently, in Times Publishing Company v. Russell, 615 So. 2d 158 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 943, 114 S.Ct. 381, 126 L.Ed.2d 330 (1993), the court explained that the standard applicable to an initial closure request is different from the standard applicable to a request to open records that have already been c…
-
Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…the propriety of closure in civil cases. We recognize that Lewis does state that the news media must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the question of closure prior to a court’s decision. However, in Times Publishing Co. v. Russell, 615 So. 2d 158, 158 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 943, 114 S.Ct. 381, 126 L.Ed.2d 330 (1993), the Florida Supreme Court stated that the Lewis decision was limited to establishing a three-prong test for determining whether the trial court was justified in closing…
-
Ocala Star-Banner v. State of Fla. & Clinton Adams, Jr., 697 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…hat the sealed documents and testimony concerning sexually transmitted diseases were properly excluded from public disclosure. Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers; Russell v. Times Publishing Co., 592 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. dismissed, 615 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1993). Further, the newspaper in this case made no additional effort to show good cause why the sealed records should be unsealed, as we required in Russell. In that ease, this court envisioned “good cause” as including situations in which jud…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dempsey J. Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Royce R. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Russell v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 570 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Russell v. Times Publ'g Co., 592 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)