In Re the Charlotte Observer, (A Division of the Knight Publishing Company and Herald Publishing Company)

Citation: 921 F.2d 47Docket: 90-5912

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; December 19, 1990; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioners, publishers of The Charlotte Observer and the Rock Hill Herald, sought a writ of mandamus to overturn two oral injunctions issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. These injunctions prohibited their reporters from disclosing the name of an attorney identified in open court as a target of an ongoing grand jury investigation. The reporters were threatened with contempt of court for noncompliance. 

Initially, the reporters requested a hearing regarding the injunction but were denied. Later, an attorney for the newspapers argued for lifting the injunction, which was ultimately denied by the district court. The petitioners then sought immediate relief from the appellate court, which expedited consideration but ensured the respondents had the opportunity to oppose the petition. 

The U.S. Attorney filed a brief in opposition, and the appellate court determined that the issues were adequately presented without the need for oral argument. It was noted that mandamus is the preferred method for reviewing orders that restrict press activity related to criminal proceedings. 

The case arose following a Rule 11 proceeding where defendant Roy F. Hunter pleaded guilty in a significant drug investigation, which had led to numerous indictments. The district judge intervened upon noticing the reporters in the courtroom, directing them not to report on the attorney, Michael Byrd, due to his status as a target of the investigation and to protect the integrity of the trial process.

Violation of the court's order could lead to contempt of court. The district court did not clarify whose right to a fair trial might be harmed by publishing the attorney's name, especially since Hunter had already pled guilty. The potential publication of the attorney's name could harm his reputation but would not infringe on his right to a fair trial, as he was not indicted and may not be indicted in the future. The district court expressed concerns about the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings and the attorney's reputation, but since the attorney's name was disclosed in open court, the issue appears settled by prior Supreme Court rulings concerning prior restraints on speech.

The Supreme Court has established that prior restraints on speech are severe infringements on First Amendment rights. Unlike a criminal or defamation judgment, which can be appealed, a prior restraint imposes immediate and irreversible consequences. This is particularly detrimental when it restricts reporting on judicial proceedings. Truthful reports of such proceedings are granted special protection against subsequent penalties. The Court noted that prohibiting the reporting of evidence from an open preliminary hearing violates established principles, as there is no prohibition against media coverage of courtroom events once they occur publicly.

The government contends that an injunction is warranted under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(C), which mandates secrecy in grand jury proceedings to maintain the integrity of investigations and protect potentially innocent individuals. Courts may issue curative orders to safeguard this secrecy. However, in the current case, the district court did not close the hearing, resulting in the disclosure occurring in a public courtroom. Once the information was publicly announced, it lost its confidential nature, and an injunction to prevent two reporters from disclosing the information would not restore that secrecy, especially since others could still obtain it from other sources. Additionally, the attorney named in open court likely knew he was a target of the investigation, as such notifications are common. Enjoining the press from publishing a name disclosed in court constitutes prior restraint, which is prohibited under the First Amendment, especially when only a target's name has been mentioned. As a result, the district court's oral injunctions against the reporters from The Charlotte Observer and the Rock Hill Herald are vacated.