Riley v. Gibson
338 S.W.3d 230
Ky.2011Background
- This case involves media access to a juror contempt hearing in a Jefferson County, Kentucky criminal case.
- After a jury verdict, two jurors alleged a third juror sought television coverage online; mistrial was not granted.
- A contempt hearing was convened in chambers with the accused juror and two accusers; the media and Commonwealth were excluded.
- A recording of the contempt hearing was released after a written objection to the exclusion; the Court of Appeals denied relief as moot.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky held the case capable of repetition yet evading review and addressed the media access issue.
- The court concluded criminal contempt hearings are subject to public access, while jury-management actions are not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness and exception applicability | Riley argues the writ should issue as a matter of public access in a case capable of repetition yet evading review. | Lower court decisions moot the case; no ongoing controversy requiring relief. | Case fits the capable-of-repetition yet-evading-review exception; writ may proceed. |
| Right of access to contempt hearings | Media has a First Amendment right to access criminal contempt proceedings. | Access hinges on traditional due process and public trial principles; not always required. | Criminal contempt hearings must be open to the public, including the media. |
| Characterization of the May 10 hearing | Hearing was a contempt proceeding entitled to public access. | Hearing was a preliminary or management activity to ensure juror conduct. | Finding the second proceeding was a contempt hearing requires public access. |
| Distinction between jury management and contempt | Public access should apply to contempt; jury management should not bar access. | Jury management activities may remain private to protect the process. | Public access applies to contempt proceedings; jury management is kept separate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Meigs, 660 S.W.2d 658 (Ky.1983) (mootness exception for repeatable access issues)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S.1980) (public access applies to criminal proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S.1984) (public access serves public interest in trials)
- Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S.1986) (two-tiered test for access)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S.1948) (rights of accused in contempt proceedings; due process)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (U.S.1960) (due process in contempt context; input from public access)
- Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (U.S.1933) (privacy interests of jurors and post-trial protection)
- Central Kentucky News-Journal v. George, 306 S.W.3d 41 (Ky.2010) (media access as sui generis to preserve First Amendment values)
- Peers v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 747 S.W.2d 125 (Ky.1988) (media standing to seek access recognized)