Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 15, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court
An emergency petition for writ of certiorari was filed by Times Publishing Company to review an order that restricted media from publishing or disseminating certain information acquired during jury selection in the trial of Mark Kohut and Charles Rourk. The petition arose on August 23, 1993, coinciding with the start of jury selection in Palm Beach County, and sought to contest an August 6 order. Although the petitioner could not provide a record due to unavailability of transcripts, the court addressed the issue as it was likely to recur. Kohut and Rourk faced serious charges including attempted murder and armed kidnapping, which attracted significant media attention, particularly after a prior venue change due to difficulties in jury selection in Hillsborough County.
The trial court's order included provisions such as: (1) restriction on the clerk releasing any identifying juror information, though trial counsel had access for voir dire purposes; (2) prohibition on media dissemination of identifying information about jurors; (3) a ban on transmitting or disseminating photographs of jurors; (4) clarification that the order was not a "gag order," allowing media to report on surrounding events; and (5) stipulation that the order would cease upon the jury being sworn and sequestered. The court ultimately quashed the order in part, acknowledging the ongoing importance of media access in legal proceedings.
Copies of the Order must be displayed at the courtroom entrance for media access. Petitioner contests sections 2 and 3 of the trial court's order, claiming section 2 constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication. While it allows media attendance at the public trial, it restricts reporting on "identifying information" observed during jury selection. The court emphasizes that, following a public hearing, the media retains the right to publish what occurs, rendering section 2 unconstitutional as it imposes prior restraint. However, the court acknowledges that the trial court can take steps to protect jurors under specific circumstances, as demonstrated by the unchallenged section 1, which keeps juror identities confidential. This confidentiality has precedent in other cases.
The court notes that any prior restraint must meet the strict standards established in Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, which includes evaluating the extent of pretrial coverage and potential alternative measures to address publicity effects. The current record is deficient since no evidence was presented during the hearings. The judge's decisions were based on prior experiences in Hillsborough County, where jurors felt uncomfortable due to media presence. Nonetheless, the court finds no evidence that media coverage hindered jury selection. The trial was relocated to Palm Beach County, and no proof suggests that this move would not alleviate any negative impact from previous media coverage.
Section 3, which prohibits media from transmitting photographs of jurors in any context, is also challenged. This section appears overly broad, as it extends beyond courtroom photography. Overall, the preventative measures in the trial court's order fail to meet constitutional standards.
Prospective jurors experienced intimidation from media attempts to photograph them during jury selection. The petitioner argues the trial court failed to establish that photographing jurors would uniquely impact individuals more than the general public, referencing State v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. In that context, the court finds no necessity for individualized concern from each juror to restrict cameras. However, the trial court's order is deemed overly broad, lacking sufficient findings to justify barring the publication of juror photographs, thus constituting an unconstitutional prior restraint under Nebraska Press Ass'n. The judiciary cannot censor public trial events, and if media access is allowed, dissemination of recorded material is also permissible.
The trial judge neglected to consider alternative measures to mitigate media impact on jurors, such as prohibiting cameras, creating separate entrances for jurors, or barring televisions in the venire room to prevent jurors from seeing biased news coverage. The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining a free press while also protecting juror rights and ensuring a fair trial. The responsibility of the media to inform the public must be balanced with safeguarding the rights of the accused. Ultimately, the court quashes sections 2 and 3 of the trial court's order without addressing additional issues raised by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus is denied as it is deemed an inappropriate form of relief. The court references Nebraska Press Ass'n, noting that a broad prohibition against information implicating the accused was deemed too vague. The case's transfer to Palm Beach County raises questions about whether the concerns that led to a mistrial in Hillsborough County would apply in Palm Beach, with insufficient records to evaluate the necessity of banning cameras in Hillsborough. Additionally, the court emphasizes that restrictions on broadcasting and photographic media outside the courtroom require evidence of an imminent threat to the administration of justice, which is not established in this record.
