Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

Re: Press-Enterprise v. Superior Court of California (II)

The Court system is an hierarchy: Municipal Court is at the bottom. Then the County Superior Court, the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, the District Court of Appeal, and the State Supreme Court. Each level is supervised, if you will, by the Court(s) above. Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court have the power to tell a Superior Court Judge what to do. This gives a measure of consistency to the application of the law statewide.

In this case, on motion by both the prosecution and the defendant, the preliminary hearing was closed to the public. This is permissible in extreme circumstances. The Press Enterprise argued that it wasn�t, which was the source of the Writ of Mandamus that is at issue in the appeal.

The Writ of Mandamus is an application made to an upper court asking for an order to force a lower court judge to do something. In this case, the Press Enterprise wanted access to the preliminary hearing�even if it was only through the transcript.

Following the preliminary hearing, the defendant was bound over to the Superior Court for trial. Instead, he opted to plead guilty. This was a capital murder case. The death penalty can only be imposed by a jury; not by a Judge. So, by pleading guilty, the worst he�d get was life. Following the guilty plea, the Superior Court Judge released the transcript of the preliminary hearing. But, this release was after the Writ was filed with the Court of Appeal.

Normally, a court won�t consider an issue if it�s moot�that is, if it has already been resolved, or if a change of circumstances make the issue unimportant. Here, the specific issue of the transcript in this case was resolved, because the Superior Court Judge released it.

However, because this was a situation where the denial of access could be repeated, the appellate courts kept jurisdiction and considered the issues anyway. Appellate courts will do this to prevent one party from manipulating the system to continue to deprive someone of his rights, but to resolve the deprivation before any oversight can take place. Appellate courts will exercise oversight anyway.

The issue before the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court, was whether pre-trial proceedings could be routinely closed to the public, the right of a fair and open trial notwithstanding?

In PE-2, both the Court of Appeal and the State Supreme Court denied the Writ of Mandamus, which would have forced the Superior Court to release the prelim transcript. Each court held that it was not only ok for the prelim to be closed, but then it was ok to basically seal the record and not release the transcript at all. It wasn�t a �tainting the jury� question; but that of an open trial. A jury wasn�t an issue because he plead guilty.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, unless it is shown in an open hearing that pre-trial procedures should be closed, they must be open to the public and the press.