*1 Association, Newspapers, Inc. v. Inc. and McClure Herald George Superior Court F. Ellison and Rutland Honorable
[419 323] No. Hill, JJ., C.J., Daley, Billings Barney,
Present: Specially Assigned Valente, Superior Judge, 29, 1980 July Opinion Filed *2 Wright, Ltd., Gravel, Hemley (On Shea & Robert B. Memorandum), Burlington, for Petitioners.
Miller, Cleary, Rutland, Respondent Morgan. Norton & for Barney, petition extraordinary C.J. This for arises relief general public from the exclusion of the media news pretrial hearing Morgan, Jr., from a in State Bernard R. prompted Docket No. S3-79Rcr. case considerable attention, presumably because defendant was accused of assaulting judge Superior an assistant of the Rutland Court. suppress alleged The defendant moved certain statements rights. have in been made violation of his constitutional He suppression hearing also for moved closure of the ground that, inadmissible, should statements be ruled wide- spread public knowledge jeopardize of their contents would his prosecutor join motion, to a fair trial. The did not in the oppose but did not it. motion, reporter
At the time of the an intern for the Herald Association, petitioner here, present opposi- was and voiced proposed tion to the closure. The court entered a closure heard, camera, order and suppression the first witness hearing. hearing It then recessed the to a later date. Before suppression hearing resumed, the Herald Association
5S1 petitioned Newspapers to vacate the closure McClure order. order, ultimately held
The court refused to its vacate hearing camera, suppression directed that rest of the jury transcript hearing until after a be sealed empaneled. trial was petition matters
So stood instant was filed when judi- Morgan case, The records in the take Court. which we America, notice, cial see Weiner v. Prudential Insurance Co. of (1938), that, reveal since that Vt. time, suppression denied, motion has been the defendant plea has elected not to stand trial and has entered a and been presumably sentenced. This has effect had unintended precluding triggered very which was to have event access to the substance in the form of release transcript empanelment jury. of a Although have, occasion, events on this outrun the full possible range relief, petitioners by seeking extraordi *3 nary employed proper legal relief have a vehicle review question. the in Rhodes, order V.R.A.P. See In re 21. Vt. 308, 310, (1973); 305 A.2d Miner v. District 428-29, (1978). Vt. 392 A.2d such While proceedings appropriate, collateral we do not countenance any implication nonparties authority that can without law any legal pending be prosecu allowed status within a criminal tion. petition brings
This complex before us and unsettled fair press recently trial-free issues so addressed the United Supreme States Court in Gannett DePasquale, Co. v. (1979), and Richmond Virginia, Inc. v. majority 100 Ct. The S. Gannett reiterated that publicity may endanger adverse right a defendant’s to a fair trial. DePasquale, supra, Gannett Co. v. It indicated 378-79. right the Sixth personal Amendment to a trial accused, 379-87, that, id. at case, right and such a right pretrial would not confer a proceedings. access to Finally majority at 387-91. expressly ques- reserved the tion whether the First Fourteenth Amendments conferred right on the a proceedings access to criminal held right exist, that even if prohibit such a did not did proper a the trial court struck pretrial at issue because closure right to a defendant’s and the such between balance fair trial. Id. 391-93. simple proposi- analysis begin of this case with our
We authoritatively this not sanction does tion that Gannett superior above, appear that the it does noted order. As we By permanent bar. order become a this court intended drawing jury transcript after terms, was its Mor- prosecution criminal of Bernard completed. Yet was transcript sealed. remains completed gan has been is now of the order appears the effect aside, it Intent on validity based its permanent measure in nature. must We impact. intended, actual, its not its distinguishes it in permanent nature of this order The There, in approved in aspect relief Gannett. from the critical properly defend- determining court balanced that the trial of access rights against any Amendment ant’s temporary nature of public, rested Justice Stewart the closure order involved:
Furthermore, any in this case was not denial of access danger prejudice only temporary. Once the absolute but dissipated, transcript suppression was of the had press then had a full made available. hearing. suppression Unlike opportunity to scrutinize therefore, access, ban of an absolute case public of the opportunity inform the had here completely. hearing accurately pretrial details circumstances, any Fourteenth First and these Under petitioner criminal to attend a trial not violated. respect order, omitted). in its (footnote In this
Id. at 393 challenge deeper present form, presents a different *4 interests stake. fragmentation of the Court and because of the Because issue, left the First Amendment Gannett of the reservation controversy as it almost as unsettled the fair trial-free provides Newspapers, supra, some addi found it. Richmond right First Amendment guidance. It held that there is a tional the decision does Id. at 2829. to criminal trials. While attend
533 right expressly any not such of access determine whether pretrial hearings, applies it seem fair to infer that to recognition hand, it of a First Amend- does. On other mere judicial proceedings right does not demand ment access to trials, to to this order be Even as vacated. recognize one, n.18, rather is an id. 2830 not absolute but weighed against be Id. at 2830 and to other interests. (“An n.18; (Brennan, J., concurring) 2834 of the assertion assayed prerogative gather accordingly information must by considering sought opposing in- information invaded.”). Moreover, supporting terests the interests greater pretrial hearings than as to trials have force as among prevent need, concerns, because of the other suppressible prejudicial “dissemination of evidence pool become, practical sense, jury beforé the subject finite sequestration.” (Brennan, 2839 n.25 J., concurring). then,
Our case to both Gannett and Richmond while similar holdings. lies It that the between the two seems implicated by order, First Amendment this but the decisions arbiter, Supreme constitutional United final States clearly not do determine whether closure violates the First Amendment. uncertainty,
In the face of such the wisdom of our tradi- needlessly tional rule self-restraint —that not we do decide issues, e.g., Wonderland, Inc., In re constitutional 133 Wildlife 507, 519-20, 645, (1975); LaPlaca, Vt. A.2d 346 653 State v. 171, 176, (1966); Hanley 126 224 Vt. A.2d v. United America, Steel Workers Vt. A.2d (1956) apparent. all the more would not wish to We inad- —is vertently infringe any right upon deny of access nor de- fendant the full course, measure his a fair trial. Of given presented a case which a determination issues questions, demands this Court such decide would be our duty to do so. But this is such a case.
Leaving concerns, aside moment for the constitutional we judicial proceedings note that this state rule exception. Sunday ones the closed See Corp., v. Stratton 293, 305-06, Vt. Where closed proceedings they specific ordinarily occurred have have had *5 534 or (obscene
statutory E.g., 12 V.S.A. 1901 § authorization. proceed- 651(c) (juvenile causes); 33 § V.S.A. scandalous inquests). (criminal ings); 13 5131 V.S.A. § scope of constitutional the undetermined Because policy of our state rights implicated and because own is contravened, any pretrial thereby judicial proceedings is a jurisdiction be on imposed must based closure order trial fair necessity protection of the defendant’s clear for A trial scope by justification. rights its and must be limited consider must therefore facing closure court a motion procedural with which devices make use of the numerous protected to a trial can be without defendant’s fair severance, “continuance, ordering They include closure. change venire, dire, peremptory chal change venue, voir Gannett, jury.” lenges, sequestration, admonition of dissenting concurring part (Blackmun, J., at 441 Project part) for Criminal (citing ABA Standards 8-3.2, (App. Justice, Press, Standard at 16 Fair Trial Free Stuart, 1978); Assn. U.S. Draft Nebraska Press v. (1976); Sheppard Maxwell, 384 562-65 n.9, (1966)). 358-62
We note that not of these well suited all devices every venue, example, frequently re Change of for is case. prejudicial pub ready expedient avoiding for ferred as a licity problems. remedy However, it is a which should Quite lightly apart expense to. be resorted from the added taxpayers, and the and inconvenience the state and the burden erodes, participants causes, change it to trial a venue “by impar spirit, trial at least in an defendant’s Const, country.” provi jury I, ch. art. That tial Vt. 10. recognition tried sion is some of a common law locally, legislative implementation in our stat and has venue See, Murphy, e.g., 108-09, utes. Vt. State Brown, (1976); A. 103 Vt. State v. (1931); 13 4601-4638. V.S.A. §§ challenged against
Measuring the closure order
here
above,
it
clear that
two considerations outlined
is
the order
assuming that
order
cannot stand. Even
some sort
closure
justified
circumstances,
question
in the
do not
which we
extends
because
imposed
decide,
must be vacated
order
Certainly,
imposition.
now
justification
its
beyond sentenced,
no
he
guilty and been
Morgan
pleaded
Bernard
protection by
worthy
trial interest
longer
fair
has a
Yet,
hearing.
as we
suppression
pretrial
of his
of the record
sealed.
still
transcript
is
above,
of that
have noted
improper.
respect, the order
At
in this
least
*6
Superior Court
17, 1980,
Rutland
January
the
order
The
of
v.
suppression
in State
sealing
transcript
the
the
of
Jr.,
is vacated.
Morgan,
No.
Docket
S3-79Rcr
Bernard R.
public
transcript
record.
is declared a
by
concurring.
reached
Billings, J.,
agree
the result
I
with
grounds
majority
case,
I
so on different
the
in
but
do
this
reading
Co.
opinion. My
of Gannett
majority
than those of the
that the Sixth
(1979),
held
DePasquale, 443
v.
U.S. 368
guaran-
not
Constitution does
Amendment to the
States
United
hearings
the defend-
pretrial
where
public
tee
access
certain
closure,
in
the cases
ant, prosecution
court concur
and
Stuart,
(1976);
539
New
Assn.
U.S.
Nebraska Press
v.
427
(per
States,
(1971)
In Richmond Court held guarantees, al- Constitution Amendment to United States public absolutely, though access criminal trials. Id. plurality opinion of Justice Chief 2830. While Newspapers appears pot- to invoke “a veritable Richmond holding, including pourri” of constitutional sources assembly speech, press, of the First free clauses free (Black- Amendment, id. the Ninth at 2842 Amendment and mun, J., concurring), Justice I find the succinct invocation speech Brennan of the free back- clause and its historical ground self-government republican system and role in a fully adequate disposition It is clear for the case. safeguarding me that the structural role of the clause is the vigorous public public importance, debate issues of see New Sullivan, York supra, Times Co. safeguard requirement
such a carries it with public permitted be access to information on matters Richmond Virginia, concern. Inc. (Brennan, J., concurring). Certainly,
S. Ct. application pretrial hearing at a of the Constitution to evi- subject dence admissible a criminal trial is a concern, for it relationship concerns the of the state and in- dividual, judicial process and the nature of the —issues preeminent significance in the debate which the vital- ensures ity society government. of our may suggested Newspapers
While that Richmond does pretrial not extend hearings, its rule to to which Gannett held guaranteed is not access under the Sixth Amend- *7 ment, unlikely. Although I find this most the Chief Justice has attempted distinguish Newspapers to Richmond from Gannett ground on the applied only pretrial hearings, that the latter to Newspapers, Virginia, Richmond Inc. 100 S. Ct. 2821, at facile, (Blackmun, such distinction is see id. at 2840 J., concurring). After Richmond the “ultimate ruling in Gannett to ... is now the effect that there is no Sixth part public of the the—or open hearing an suppress.” on a motion to at —to 2842 (Blackmun, J., concurring).
It is Newspapers inconsistent with Richmond and not re- quired by Gannett to conclude in the instant case that there may or not be a First Amendment of to access pretrial hearings. having motions The court below no found giving any facts rise qualifying basis public’s right to for the access, closing the court’s order record was clear error.
Hill, concurring J., part dissenting part. I concur majority’s opinion in the grants it insofar as access to the hearing, suppression from but dissent transcript of the every respect. other
I. cursory majority’s review Initially, I take issue with accurately reflects facts, that it what for I do not believe attempt supply the transpired present critical in the case. I yet missing facts. charging 30, 1979,
First, the information on October when Superior Morgan filed in Rutland Bernard R. deputy attor- by of a state’s accompanied an affidavit it was of the an account events ney. affidavit contained alleged eyewitness crimes, day two transpired on the accused, made several statements of the identifications inculpate him, and the potential that tended trial witnesses at- incriminating the witnesses statements recitation became affidavit Both the information tributed him. Superior Court part file at the Rutland record on 4, 1980, January until and continued superior result of as a the affidavit was sealed when many It was this affidavit contained court’s closure order. sought Morgan suppress and that statements which pur- provided the newsstories information portedly closure motion. resulted in defendant’s Morgan pre-
Second, claimed press attention that majority receiving trial, a fair and that vent him from “considerable,” consisted, as record so far characterizes shows, months. newsstories over course two of seven Furthermore, entirely newsstories consisted almost straightforward surrounding Morgan’s reporting of the facts arrest and of the victim. There was not even the condition tinge Rutland of sensationalism in articles. See 6; Daily 1979, 15, id., 30, Herald, 29, at October col. October 3; 1979, 13, 5; id., id., col. No- col. October at 1, 1979, id., 15, 1979, 1; vember col. November *8 2; January 4, 1980, 1; January 5, 1980, id., id., col. col. 1. col. granted This the when the trial court was state case unopposed motion to com- defendant’s close. Petitioners then proceeding, present challenging the the menced the order of superior being of as in'Violation the First court and Sixth Constitution, applicable to Amendments the United States through to the the Amendment. states Fourteenth
II. presented today, The issue with while to which we new Court, recently by was addressed United States Supreme DePasquale, Court in Co. Gannett case, (1979). Supreme held, by In that Court a 5-4 majority, Amendment Sixth to United States closing pretrial suppression Constitution does not bar the of a public press judge to and the both where prosecutor acquiesce, jeop- proceeding a right major- a Writing ardize defendant’s to a fair trial. a ity Justice Stewart stated that the Sixth Amend- guarantee personal ment accused,” “is a trial “any and does not embrace of access to a trial criminal part public.” Id. at 379-80. Whether the have First Amendment information, however, expressly of access to re- 392; served seven members of Id. at id. at Court. 447. Only justices squarely issue, they two addressed came opposite J., (Powell, concurring, conclusions. finding right); (Eehnquist, id. at 404-06 J., concurring, finding right). no First Amendment bar,
In although the case at the First Amendment issue was squarely raised, majority goes great pains to skirt it. unwilling, however, I am deciding squarely avoid issues necessary particular raised and to the determination case guise needlessly [ing] of “not decid constitutional is- sues,” when I being believe that is traditional rule mis- merely resolving used to avoid a controversial issue. my
It opinion is the First Amendment does confer public access, though absolute, judicial pro- objective ceedings. A core First Amendment is to ensure that there is a full general and free flow information to the public, citizenry so that an responsibly informed can exercise rights those system govern- essential the success of our ment. New York Sullivan, See Times Co. among Foremost rights those fundamental right freely to discuss and govern- scrutinize the affairs of *9 sys- justice our
ment, in which criminal especially the manner tem is conducted. function of the societal at here is is stake
What public of preserving free discussion governmental aspect of that constitutional affairs. No protection rightly its guarantee treasured than is more through debate ability people and free of our destiny. It embodies ... resolve their own consider and popular self-determination Nation’s commitment our develop- abiding the surest course and our faith that exchange free [governmental] policy lies in a ing sound only public public must not issues. debate of on And views unfettered; informed. it must also be Washington 843, (1974) Co., 862-63 Post Saxbe v. Sullivan, dissenting). v. (Powell, J., New York Times Co. See Show, Inc., supra. Maryland Baltimore Radio also See J., respecting (opinion Frankfurter, (1950) of U.S. (“One certiorari) denial the demands of democratic of goes society courts public know what should happens there, by being by end told what justice system public may judge criminal our whether right.”). is fair and
Only recently
case
the occasion in
civil
this Court had
judicial system’s antipathy toward secret
our
comment on
Corp., 136
judicial proceedings.
Sunday
Vt.
In
v. Stratton
(1978), the
confronted with a claim
Secrecy ignorance action can and breed suspicion concerning distrust courts com- petence judges; impartiality free robust re- criticism, porting, can and debate contribute comprehension understanding the rule of law functioning justice system, of the entire as criminal improve system subjecting quality of that well cleansing exposure toit effects of account- ability.
Sunday supra1 Corp., v. Stratton also De See Gannett Co. v. (Blackmun, J., quale, supra, concurring Pas *10 dissenting); Cianfrani, 835, United F.2d States v. 851 573 (3d 1978). Cir.
Among many brought beneficial effects that are to bear transpires judicial proceedings to know what protection against perjury publicity pro- “[t]he vides, and opportunity publicity offers to wit- unknown to make nesses known” to the themselves court. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra, J., concurring (Blackmun, 443 U.S. 427 dissenting). Furthermore, open pro- proceedings serve “to tect accused from the abuses to which secret tribunals [the] would be prone,” as that well as ensure no defendant bene- partiality corrupt, fits biased, “from the or incompetent of judge.” short, public guarantee proceedings at 428. In that probity process judicial maintained, and that the public’s carry officials entrusted with the their confidence out trustworthy duties a conscientious and manner. average
Because the citizen neither the time nor the judicial pro- inclination attend or all of the multitude of ceedings place day, take within our state each it neces- sarily press provide devolves the information that the public requires discharge intelligently political their re- sponsibilities. say, course, press This is not to of en- joys any right greater of large, access than the but ferretting press rather that in agents out news acts as populace. for the (Powell, J., Id. at concurring); Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 469, v. 495 above, guaranteed
As I stated of access both is not absolute. There are a number of 1 majority opinion Sunday embodying policy cites a mere in favor judicial proceedings. of impossible, I however, find it to so facilely pass underpinnings case, espe off the constitutional cially light opinion fact that Mr. Justice Brennan’s Stuart, grounded Nebraska Press Association v. on none than other the First Amendment.
541 delineating the bounds confronted instances where courts with compelling sufficiently access have held that such See, closing proceeding. e.g., may Gannett exist for reasons J., con- (Powell, DePasquale, supra, 443 at 397 n.l U.S. Co. v. Allen, jury proceedings); Illinois curring) (grand v. 397 decorum); preserve United (necessary 337, (1970) 343 (2d Cir.), denied, 409 U.S. Bell, F.2d 667 cert. v. 464 States States, 262 (“skyjacker profile”); Geise v. United (1972) 991 young complainant (9th 1958) (testimony of F.2d 151 Cir. rape v. prosecution); Rockland Inc. Westchester n.3, 518, 423 430, N.E.2d Leggett, n.3, 453 532 N.Y.2d concurring) J., (Fuchsberg, (1979) 644 n.3 N.Y.S.2d Philadelphia Newspapers, jury); (deliberations judge and (1978) Jerome, Pa. Inc. Stafford, (sidebar conferences); Williams and bench (juvenile C.J., dissenting) (Wyo. 1979) (Raper, P.2d Secrecy Amend- cases). generally Note, See Trial Right Proceedings, 91 Harv. Access ment Public to Judicial possible excep- range (1978). The full such L. Rev. 1899 however, pre- here, for the issue need not delineated tions public’s today only the where the sented involves situation *11 press’ right sought to of access be curtailed based prejudicial open proceedings result in concern that thereby publicity, impinging right to a fair on a defendant’s trial. great majority it would
I believe that in the cases public’s possible for con- trial court accommodate a criminal consti- stitutional of access with defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court’s determination would tutional necessity judge potential preju- require the to measure the publicity, already re- claimed effect that both that dicial yet come, will have on the trial. To leased ultimate pro- judge having accommodation, make I would aid following guidelines, generally follow vide Association, proposed Bar ABA American standards Relating Justice, Standards to the Administration of Criminal Press, (App. 1978), Fair Trial and Free Standard 8-3.2 Draft great majority adopted by the consid- courts have See, e.g., Publications, Northwest Inc. v. the issue. And ered — (1977); —, 254 Publish erson, 259 N.W.2d Keene Minn. County Superior Corp. 710, ing 119 N.H. 406 v. Cheshire 542 Press, (1979); Detroit
A.2d
Free
Inc. v. Macomb Circuit
137
Judge,
(1979);
Allen,
482
State
405 Mich.
275 N.W.2d
(1977);
Rockland
73 N.J.
373
377
Westchester
Leggett, supra,
N.E.2d
Inc. v.
N.Y.2d
Dayton
(1979);
State ex rel.
News-
N.Y.S.2d 630
papers,
Phillips, 46
St. 2d
First, provide an accused closure an ade- who seeks must finding quate support a there is a substantial basis to irreparably damaged likelihood that his fair trial will be by holding show, proceeding. The accused must consider, publicity the court must the nature and extent of prior reasonably project to the motion in order to coverage sought whether will result in the harm further to be DePasquale, supra, avoided. See Gannett Co. v.
(Blackmun, J., concurring dissenting).
Second, the accused must show a substantial
likelihood that
less
adequately pro-
restrictive alternatives to closure
will
adjudging
tect
fairness of his
In
an
trial.
whether
accused
point
showing
made a sufficient
on this
to warrant
extraordinary
closure,
judge
very
device of
a trial
should at the
following
least
continuance,
consider the
alternatives:
sever-
ance, change
venue,
venire,
change
dire,
peremptory
voir
challenges, sequestration,
jury.
admonition
ABA
Standards,
(App.
1978);
Standard 8-3.2
Draft
Stuart, supra,
see
Press
Nebraska
Association
necessary
562-65. A conclusion that closure is
because no less
adequate
supported
restrictive alternatives would be
must be
by explicit findings
Furthermore,
made on the record.
in the
suppression hearings
case of
here,
nature involved
which most often
surrounding
address
circumstances
substance,
obtainment
a confession rather than its
a care-
fully
conducted
had in
could be
a minimum
with
*12
prejudicial
risk that
information would be disclosed. See Gan-
DePasquale,
nett Co. v.
supra,
(Blackmun, J.,
Third, the accused must establish there is substantial guarding likelihood that against closure will effective in be prejudicial in- Where, here, substantial perceived harm. public, already it is made doubtful been formation only serves efficacious, the most closure for at closure would be information, information preclude not eradicate access public. knowledge Id. already within courtroom, person Lastly, any asked to leave the before is briefly informally given opportunity to he must be course, say, objections record. This is state his given prior motion or the notice of the that the must be person Similarly, subsequently hearing. if a Id. 445-46. given oppor- record, he to a must be denied access sealed tunity objections. his to raise rights potentially conflicting balancing constitutional
The
care,
person
forced to
requires
no
be
the utmost
should
guidelines
rights.
that I
relinquish
her
his or
cherished
propose
rights
both the
would serve to accommodate
rights
in
defendant and the
criminal
overwhelming
If, however,
majority
the extraor-
of cases.
arise,
dinary
requires restrictions on
should
case which
access
no further
than the circum-
those
should extend
restrictions
reasonably require.
at 444-45. It must
remem-
stances
general
judicial proceedings
bered that the
rule is that
should
Corp.,
Sunday
be held in
See
v. Stratton
court.
departure
Any
III. carefully case, I have reviewed record and I find support facts that barren of the court’s closure inquiry order. No factual was made into the nature or extent publicity given up had been the case until the time imposed. At the closure order was first on the mo- order, the court’s tion to vacate the main thrust arguments legal theories, related to relevant not to the publicity potential impact community. Further- more, considering whether less restrictive alternatives sufficed, the merely closure would have lower court recited the suggested above, options we and dismissed them seriatim in conclusory terms, making any findings without ever of fact as *13 why protect to those would not served alternatives have against perceived highly questionable the harm. It is also actually pur- the closure order achieved its whether intended pose, most, prejudicial all, if not since information to sought already which the to restrict in accused access was public. hands of the though appears
Even Court now to hold that present properly in not imposed, order case was it is not position damage rights in a that undo the was done to the press, proceeding since the closed already The been held. irremediable nature of a closure order inadequacy transcript as a substitute for attend- hearing compelling ance at a why two I reasons forcefully necessity stress for the trial court to marshal attempting judgment all the facts to make a before on an un- judicial opposed proceeding. motion to close a majority hand, opinion, on the other no sees difference between attend- hearing having transcript ance aat access to a of that hearing result, at some later date. As a it fails to address the right issue whether have a of access merely to the It itself. concludes that as between a right press may may of access have, or not they decide, question right do not and a a fair trial that the longer pled no defendant here has because he has guilty, the outweighs nothing. former the latter. This resolves stages present In the later of our consideration of the case Supreme Court the United States decided Richmond News- Virginia, papers, Inc. 100 Ct. S. Contrary to majority, evidently who have read that eye case with an say what it did than more towards say, towards what did supports that case I conclusion believe that there is a First judicial right of access to proceedings general. Amendment advanced the various The reasons members of the Court in holding there is a First Amendment of access to compelling equally determining trials are whether there is pretrial Amendment a First access judi- and other Furthermore, proceedings. the First cial analysis Newspapers in Richmond on does relied not lend itself to the simple analysis distinctions Sixth Amendment relied Gannett, Literally, does. Sixth Amendment “public to a gives the accused trial.” not, It does Gannett, make some members of the Court observed Amendment, pretrial proceedings. mention of The First language upon hand, this distinction other contains no pretrial proceedings made. At the between could be trials sought most, type proceeding is one which access determining factor to taken into a de- account in whether overriding pre- fendant has shown such an interest sumption openness judicial proceedings which attaches *14 has been rebutted. Fayen
State Vermont v. Rick [418 866] No. 59-79 Barney, C.J., Daley, Larrow, Billings Hill, Present: JJ.
Opinion August 5, Filed Michael Sheehan, J. County Windsor State’s Attorney, Junction, White River for Plaintiff. Fayen, pro se,
Rick Taftsville, Defendant.