United States v. Ming Sen Shiue

Citations: 504 F. Supp. 360; 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2249; 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15123Docket: Cr. 3-80-72

Court: District Court, D. Minnesota; December 1, 1980; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

KSTP-TV seeks access to three hours of video tapes introduced as evidence in the criminal case against Ming Sen Shiue, who was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment. Shiue's appeal is ongoing, and he faces additional charges of kidnapping and murder in state court. The video tapes include recordings of Shiue's interactions with his victim, Mary Stauffer, during her captivity, but do not depict the actual sexual assaults. The court previously prohibited the display of explicit content from these tapes. KSTP-TV argues for access based on precedents set in the "Abscam" and "Watergate" cases, asserting a general public right to inspect judicial records. However, access is not guaranteed; the Supreme Court has indicated that such rights can be limited to prevent public scandal or the dissemination of harmful or libelous information. The request has faced opposition from several parties, including Stauffer and government attorneys. Oral arguments occurred on November 24, 1980, following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause.

The court emphasizes that access to public records is determined by trial courts based on specific facts and circumstances, advocating for "informed discretion" while cautioning against unrestricted copying. In this case, the decision revolves around whether to release tapes for commercial broadcast, which the author opposes, arguing it would promote sensationalism and violate the privacy rights of victim Mary Stauffer. The document clarifies that this situation does not raise a "fair trial–free press" issue, as the media has adequately covered the trial and transcripts were provided. The court reiterates that the media does not possess any superior right to trial information compared to the public. The Supreme Court has established that the First Amendment does not grant media the right to copy actual evidence, only access to the information within it, which has already been made available through transcripts. The author concludes that the conflict between privacy rights and First Amendment interests should favor Stauffer’s privacy, distinguishing this case from others like Abscam, which involved significant public interest in the tapes due to allegations against public officials.

Release of the video tapes depicting Mrs. Stauffer's ordeal is not warranted as it serves no public interest and would result in further humiliation for her. The tapes show her in a degrading situation prior to a rape, which she bravely testified about during the trial, assisting the government significantly. The court emphasizes that releasing the tapes would constitute a severe invasion of her privacy and would not provide any additional valuable information to the public that is not already available through the trial proceedings. The media had access to the tapes and transcripts during the trial, leaving no substantial benefit to releasing the tapes now. Additionally, such a release could impede the ability to select impartial jurors for the upcoming trial of the accused, Shiue, potentially violating his Sixth Amendment rights. The court concludes that the release would only satisfy prurient interest and not serve a proper public purpose. Consequently, the requests from KSTP-TV and WCCO-TV for access to the tapes are denied, and similar requests from the public will also be denied. The court's findings and conclusions on this matter will be documented as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. A separate file will be created for all related papers.

Applicants argue that the objections to the release of tapes do not meet the high threshold of "compelling and extraordinary circumstances" needed to counter the presumption of public access, referencing the Abscam case incorrectly. The Abscam decision, based on United States v. Mitchell, emphasized that only the most compelling circumstances should restrict public access, suggesting a constitutional dimension to the common law right of access. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Watergate case did not elevate this right to constitutional status, indicating that the discretion to release evidence lies with the trial judge, who should consider established exceptions to public access.

The excerpt also draws a parallel between invasion of privacy and libel, illustrating that the tapes could contain private and potentially libelous content. While the court acknowledges Mrs. Stauffer's privacy interests, it clarifies that it is not preemptively endorsing the Minnesota Supreme Court's potential recognition of an invasion of privacy cause of action or adjudicating the constitutional right to privacy. Instead, the court is exercising discretion by balancing the victim's dignity against the public's right to know.