Miami Herald Media Company v. in Re: State v. Arbelo
218 So. 3d 460
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Media intervenors (Miami Herald Media Co. and WPLG, Inc.) sought access to pretrial discovery and an upcoming Arthur hearing in a high‑profile Miami‑Dade murder case; petition for expedited review of trial court orders was filed.
- Trial court granted access to many materials but sealed or redacted certain videotapes, crime scene photos, and materials revealing the substance of a confession (found exempt under §119.071(2)(e)).
- Trial court closed an Arthur hearing to the public/media after finding extraordinary media interest, extensive inflammatory publicity (including viral social‑media dissemination), and risk of prejudice to defendants’ right to a fair trial.
- Court applied the three‑pronged Lewis test for pretrial closure: (1) necessity to prevent a serious and imminent threat to administration of justice; (2) no reasonable alternatives (other than venue change); (3) narrowness/effectiveness of closure.
- Appellate court reviewed under certiorari/departure‑from‑essential‑requirements‑of‑law standard and deferred to trial court factual findings supported by the record, including in‑camera review and narrow redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by closing Arthur hearing to media | Media: closure unsupported by record or authority; public right to access | State/Defendants: closure necessary to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity and protect fair trial rights | Denied — trial court made fact findings, addressed Lewis factors, closure temporary and narrowly tailored |
| Whether trial court improperly withheld discovery materials | Media: broader disclosure required under Chapter 119 and public‑access principles | Court: many items released or redacted; some items withheld to avoid exposing confessions/ prejudicial evidence | Denied — trial court released majority of materials, sealed/redacted limited items with reasons |
| Whether trial court needed expert studies to justify closure | Media: court lacked empirical/ expert support for closure | Court: in‑camera review, evidence of pervasive local/international media and inflammatory content sufficed | Denied — no requirement for expert testimony; record provided competent support |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh trial court’s factual determinations | Media: appellate intervention necessary because of public access rights | Trial court: factual findings supported by evidence and law; closure reversible if prejudice dissipates | Denied — appellate court defers to trial court where supported by substantial competent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982) (establishes three‑pronged test for closure of pretrial proceedings)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public and press have right to attend criminal trials)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (limits on public access to certain pretrial proceedings)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (recognizes particularly prejudicial nature of confessions/admissions)
- State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980) (describes Arthur hearing and evidence standards for pretrial detention)
- State v. Knight, 866 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2003) (factors for assessing prejudicial pretrial publicity)
- Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1988) (appellate standard for original petitions for certiorari reviewing media access rulings)
- Times Publ’g Co. v. State, 903 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (review of orders denying public access to discovery materials)