Gannett Co. v. DePasquale - Impact

In a close, 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trial judges could close criminal proceedings despite an apparently conflicting public interest and right to have open access to courtrooms. Although dissenting justices provided convincing rationale to support the petitioner's claim that media publishers do indeed represent a viable public right, the Court held that, in order to have fair, lawful proceedings, lower courts could close trials. The rights of defendants under due process took precedence over public access. The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was designed to protect defendants and enable them to enjoy benefits of public presence. The Court found it acceptable, therefore, that Judge DePasquale ruled to grant defendants a closed pretrial hearing in order to avoid prejudicial influence of press and public. All participants at court agreed to a closed hearing, and a transcript from the pretrial hearing was soon delivered to the press after the hearing. Thus, the U.S Supreme Court found no constitutional public (or journalistic media) right to attend criminal trials. The interests of justice to provide fair, impartial trials to defendants prevailed over the social, public interest to have unrestricted access to trials.