In re Maine Today Media, Inc. State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr.
59 A.3d 499
Me.2013Background
- Maine Today Media, Inc. appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of its motions for a stay and to intervene in a criminal proceeding (State v. Strong) and seeks access to voir dire for public and press observation.
- The appellate court accepts an interlocutory appeal under the death knell exception and denies the motion for a temporary restraining order or mandamus/prohibition, reserving broader public-intervention issues for future proceedings.
- The trial court used extensive individual voir dire that effectively excluded public access, while considering opening the process after Strong’s agreement, which was later withdrawn due to concerns about juror impartiality.
- Maine Today’s intervention request was filed late, and the trial court denied it; the appeal challenges that denial as to whether the public has a right to observe voir dire and whether intervention was warranted.
- The majority vacates the denial of intervention for the limited purpose of the issues on appeal and vacates the order barring public access to the voir dire, remanding to conduct remaining voir dire in a presumptively public manner with safeguards for sensitive juror information.
- The Court directs potential reconsideration motions to be filed promptly and provides procedural steps to avoid further delay, including notice requirements and filing deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public access to voir dire | Maine Today contends public access is required by Press-Enterprise and First Amendment considerations. | Strong and the State contend that private voir dire protects juror candor and impartiality, justifying closure. | Public voir dire required; remand for presumptively public voir dire with redaction safeguards. |
| Intervention by Maine Today | Intervention is warranted to protect the press’s and public’s access to judicial proceedings. | Intervention is inappropriate or untimely given ongoing proceedings and potential prejudice. | Intervention vacated and allowed for limited purposes addressed in the appeal. |
| Appropriateness of interlocutory appeal | Urgent public access concerns justify expedited review. | Standard appellate review applies; no extraordinary relief warranted. | Interlocutory appeal accepted under the death knell exception. |
| Balance of constitutional rights | Public and press rights should not be sacrificed to protect jury candor; transparency is essential. | Constitutional rights to an impartial trial may justify limited privacy in voir dire. | Public access must be preserved where possible; closure limited by Presley framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside County, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (establishes test for public access to criminal proceedings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (recognizes limits on public access when private voir dire is necessary)
- Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982) (requires explicit findings and consideration of alternatives to closure)
- Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 837 A.2d 129 (Me. 2003) (injunction standards and burden in ex parte applications)
- State v. DeMotte, 669 A.2d 1331 (Me. 1996) (longstanding Maine practice on privacy for individual voir dire)
- Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2010) (four-factor test for stays or injunctions pending appeal; strong likelihood of success and irreparable harm emphasized)
- Ingraham v. Univ. of Me. at Orono, 441 A.2d 691 (Me. 1982) (reiterates Presley framework for closure analyses)