THE TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE VINCENT HALL, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 District Court of Appeal reviewed orders issued by a trial judge that restricted press access and imposed restraints on extrajudicial statements during a criminal trial. The court found the original press exclusion order moot but directed the trial judge to hold a hearing before enforcing paragraph 10's gag order and to provide notice and hearing before prohibiting cameras during victim testimony.
The court held that the original press exclusion orders were moot and did not require further review. However, the court directed the trial judge to conduct a hearing with notice to all interested parties before enforcing the gag order on extrajudicial statements, and similarly to hold a noticed hearing before prohibiting cameras during victim testimony.
[1] A court may permit parties to appear as amicus curiae if they have a sufficient interest in the proceedings and no objection is raised.
[2] A motion for stay of proceedings will be denied when a stay would cause manifest inconvenience and substantial expense, particularly when arrangements have already been m…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Since the order of March 2,1978, was entered without notice and hearing, the trial judge is hereby directed to conduct a hearing prior to the commencement of the criminal trial at which all interested parties may present argument concerning the needs and propriety of the restraints prescribed in paragraph 10.”
Establishes the court's core holding that judicial restraints on press freedom require notice and hearing before enforcement.
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 trial was scheduled for March 13, 1978. The trial judge issued orders on March 2 and 3, 1978, that excluded the press from the trial under …
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 Motion To Stay cases and more on FLexlaw
The events leading up to the entry of this order are set forth below:
A. On March 8,1978, the Times Publishing Co. and the Bradenton Herald filed in this court a petition to review orders of March 2,1978 and March 3,1978, which had the effect of excluding the press from the trial of the above styled case under certain circumstances and a motion to stay the trial now scheduled for March 13, 1978.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of Fla.R. App.P. 9.100(d) this court scheduled a hearing on this petition at 11:00 a.m. on March 10, 1978, giving notice thereof to the petitioners, the attorney general, the state attorney for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, counsel for the defendant and the trial judge.
C. Prior to hearing, this court was advised that on March 9,1978, the court below had issued an order which had the effect of obviating the complaints set forth in the petition.
D. On March 9, 1978, the petitioners filed a supplementary petition stating that they had just received a copy of the trial court’s order of March 2,1978, and they are now complaining of a portion thereof previously unknown to them which has not been rescinded, to wit: paragraph 10 which reads:
10. No extra judicial statement shall be made by any witness, court official, police officers, or counsel for either side. This order is effective March 13, 1978.
E. On March 9, 1978, The Tribune Company and WFLA, Inc. filed a motion for joinder in the petition for review or in the alternative to appear as amicus curiae.
F. Counsel for petitioners and those seeking joinder, an assistant state attorney of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and an assistant attorney general appeared before this court at the scheduled hearing on this date.
G. In addition to joining in arguments of the other petitioners, WFLA, Inc. has attacked a portion of the order entered on March 9, 1978, wherein the trial judge has reserved the right to enter a subsequent order prohibiting still and television cameras from the courtroom during the sixteen year-old victim’s testimony at the trial.
H. The assistant state attorney and the assistant attorney general have represented that a stay of this case would cause manifest inconvenience and substantial expense, particularly since arrangements have already been made for expert witnesses from out-of-state to appear at the trial.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
I. In view of the fact that the complaints set forth in the original petition have been rendered moot by the subsequent order of March 9, 1978, the court will not further pass upon these matters.
2. Because of the exigent need for this criminal trial to proceed as scheduled, the motion for stay is hereby denied.
3. There having been no objection to the motions for joinder and it appearing that the movants have standing because of their interest in these proceedings, The Tribune Company and WFLA, Inc. are hereby permitted to appear as parties hereto.
4. Since the order of March 2,1978, was entered without notice and hearing, the trial judge is hereby directed to conduct a hearing prior to the commencement of the criminal trial at which all interested parties may present argument concerning the needs and propriety of the restraints prescribed in paragraph 10. See State ex rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1976); Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F. 2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975); and CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F. 2d 234 (6th Cir. 1975).
5. Should the trial judge continue to believe that these restraints or some form of restraints are needed during the trial, he shall enter another order to this effect in which he should state the reasons for the necessity of such restraints.
6. With respect to the petition of WFLA, Inc., the trial judge is requested that in the event he intends to consider the prohibition of still and television cameras during the victim’s testimony, he first hold a hearing on the same with notice to appropriate segments of the press and electronic media and that such hearing be held reasonably in advance of the time at which it is estimated that the victim will testify.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. The Honorable Ben C. Willis, 370 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…rights under the United States Constitution, citing among other authorities State ex rel. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla.1977); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. State, 363 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Times Publishing Co. v. Hall, 357 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); News-Press Pub. Co., Inc. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); The Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Collazo, 329 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). The McIntosh case involved a true “prior restraint” order barring public…
-
State v. Rinehart, 49 Fla. Supp. 64 (Pinellas Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)…otice and did not participate in the court’s initial consideration of motions to seal the court records. The standing of the press to challenge such orders is unchallenged. State v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1977); Times Publishing Co. v. Hall, 357 So. 2d 736, 3 Med.L.Rptr. 1977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). By order dated November 13, 1978, the court ruled that the special closure rules of Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1977), do not obtain in this action, because the defendant in this cause, a sixteen-year-old y…
-
State v. Diaz, 49 Fla. Supp. 147 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)…a v. Bundy, 48 Fla. Supp. 204 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Leon County); State v. Rinehart, 49 Fla. Supp. 64 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Pinellas County). See also News-Press Publishing Co. v. Shearer, No. 79-1085 (Fla. 2d DCA, June 12, 1979); Times Publishing Company v Hall, 357 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); News-Press Publishing Co., Inc. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977): Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Collazo, 329 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). 2. The Florida Supreme Court has recently recognized that televised iudicial…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. McINTOSH, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1976)
- CBS Inc. v. The Honorable Don J. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. 1975)
- Chicago Council OF Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975)