STATE
v.
RUTRELL
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 court addressed a First Amendment challenge to orders restricting media coverage of a suppression hearing in a capital crime case. The court held that while it may control courtroom publicity to protect the defendant's fair trial rights, it cannot prohibit the press from reporting on proceedings conducted in open court with public presence.
The court may not limit the right of the news media to print accounts of what transpires in open court. The critical distinction is whether proceedings are held in isolation or in open court before the public; proceedings conducted in open court cannot be subject to press restrictions regardless of potential prejudicial effect on the defendant.
[1] Courts may not limit the right of the news media to print an account of that which transpires in open court.
[2] Oral orders of a court may be vacated upon joint petition.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the courts may not limit the right of the news media to print an account of that which transpires in "open court."”
Establishes the core holding that press restrictions on open court proceedings are impermissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with a capital crime. During a motion to suppress hearing, the court heard evidence it considered prejudicial to the defenda…
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 Freedom Of The Press cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration on the joint petition of Gore Newspapers Company and the Miami Herald Publishing Company to vacate oral orders of this court on November 1 and 2, 1971, and to modify its written order of November 3, 1971, entered on the defendant’s motion, while the court heard the motion to suppress of the defendant, who was charged with a capital crime. The intent of the orders was to control publicity prejudicial to the defendant, in that it would tend to adversely affect the rights of the defendant to a fair trial in the eyes of the jury and would tend to wipe out in the eyes of the jury the defendant’s presumption of innocence.
*131From a close examination of the authorities presented by counsel, it appears that the courts may not limit the right of the news media to print an account of that which transpires in “open court.”
The evidence to be given and given on the motion to suppress of the defendant was considered by the court to be prejudicial to the defendant, however, while it was heard by the court in the absence of the jury it nevertheless was heard in the courtroom in the presence of the public, not in isolation. This appears to be the cleavage by the authorities. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966), 418 P. 2d 594; State ex rel Superior Ct. of Snohomish Co. of Sperry, Wash., 483 P. 2d 608.
It is therefore ordered that the oral orders of the court entered on November 1 and 2, 1971, are vacated, and the written order of the court entered on November 3, 1971 as of November 1, 1971, the latter as it applies to the petitioners, is modified to eliminate the inclusion of the petitioners therein.