Global Freedom of Expression

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    July 2, 1979
  • Outcome
    Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
    443 U.S. 368
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information, Press Freedom
  • Tags
    Public Interest

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the public has no right to attend criminal trials, and that exclusion of the press from pretrial proceedings was constitutional if used to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Pretrial hearings on the suppression of evidence in a criminal case were closed to the public after it was determined that publicity had jeopardized the defendant’s right to a fair trial; the petitioner in this case argued the closure of the hearings to its reporters violated the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  The Court determined that there was no separate right of the public to a public trial, but that limitations on access to trial proceedings that served to ensure that the defendant received a fair trial (especially if temporary, as in this case) were constitutional under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.


This case involved a prosecution for the homicide of Wayne Clapp, who disappeared in July of 1976 in Seneca Lake. Three suspects; Greathouse, his wife, and Jones, were arrested by the police because Greathouse and Jones were the last people seen with Clapp. The suspects were indicted by a Grand Jury in August. The Petitioner Gannett Co., Inc, which publishes two regional newspapers, had covered the case in several detailed  stories as the investigation and legal process progressed reporting on the backgrounds of the accused and Clapp, the finding of a gun which, according to the report Greathouse had led the Michigan police to, the subsequent arraignment and indictment of the accused and including information allegedly from witness depositions.

During an allotted 90-day period defense attorneys filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements made to the police on the basis that they had been given given involuntarily. They also moved to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of the involuntary confessions, namely the gun reportedly found by the police on Greathouse’s information.

At the suppression hearing, the defense argued that the public and press should be excluded from the hearing because the unabated buildup of adverse publicity had jeopardized the defendants’ ability to receive a fair trial. The District Attorney did not object and the trial judge granted the request and no objection was made by the Petitioner’s reporter who was in court at the time.

Subsequently the Petitoner challenged this ruling arguing that it had a constitutional right to attend the hearing. The trial judge denied the request finding that the “interest of the press and the public was outweighed in this case by the defendants’ right to a fair trial.” para. 376. This Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court of New York challenging the trial court’s orders on First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York vacated the trial judge’s orders, holding that they transgressed the public’s vital interest in open judicial proceedings and further constituted an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

On appeal, New York Court of Appeals held that even though criminal trials are generally open to the public, in this case closure was appropriate because of the risk posed to the rights of the defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review because of the “significant constitutional questions involved.”

Decision Overview

Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.

First, the Court considered the issue of mootness finding that the underlying dispute was not moot because it met the applicable standard of being capable of repetition yet evading review.  In this case, although the order closing the pretrial hearing had expired because the defendants had pleaded guilty to lesser offenses and a transcript of the suppression hearing had been made available to the Petitioner, it was reasonable to expect that the Petitioner, as a publisher of two New York papers, could be subjected to similar closure orders entered by the New York courts in compliance with the judgment of that State’s Court of Appeals.

The Court then turned to the merits of the case. First, it discussed whether the public had a Sixth Amendment right to access of a criminal trial. It stated that the Sixth Amendment contains protections solely for the benefit of a criminal defendant and the requirement of a public trial was to guarantee that the accused would be fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned. The Court said that while there is clearly an independent public interest in the enforcement of a Sixth Amendment right, there is no separate constitutional right on the part of the public to a public trial. For example, if a defendant waived his right to a jury trial, the public could not then request one on his behalf. Similarly, the Court found no support for the right of access in the Fourteenth Amendment or through the common law and noted the English common law’s historical denial of public access to pretrial hearings.

The Court declined to consider whether the public had a right of access to pretrial hearings under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because, in this case, the trial judge had determined that there was a “reasonable probability of prejudice to the defendants” having employed a balancing test between the constitutional rights of the press and the rights of the defendants to a fair trial. In other words he had made his decision based on the competing societal interests involved rather than on the basis that First Amendment freedoms were not implicated. Further, it was a temporary denial of access only and once the danger of prejudice had dissipated, a transcript of the suppression hearing was made available. The press and the public then had a full opportunity to scrutinize the suppression hearing. Unlike the case of an absolute ban on access, therefore, the press here had the opportunity to inform the public of the details of the pretrial hearing accurately and completely. Under these circumstances, any First and Fourteenth Amendment right of the petitioner to attend a criminal trial was not violated. This holding was expanded in a subsequent case.

Justice Burger wrote separately to concur, agreeing with the opinion of the Court but wanting to clarify that a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence before trial is merely a pretrial hearing and not a trial.

Justice Powell wrote separately to concur, joining the opinion of the Court but adding that he would have found a right of the press to access trials under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as the majority declined to decide.

Justice Rehnquist wrote separately to concur, also wanting the court to make a decision on the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to access, as this question is now open for interpretation among the individual states.

Justice Blackman (joined by Justice Brennan, White, and Marshall) wrote separately to concur in part and dissent in part. Blackman would have found that the Sixth Amendment allows for the right of access, and would not limit the Amendment to protecting  only the rights of the accused, specifically referring back to Singer v. United States, where the Court found “although a defendant can, under some circumstances, waive his constitutional right to a public trial, he has no absolute right to compel a private trial.” *417 The dissent would find, rather, a lack of rights for the criminal defendant in requesting a closed trial. Further, the Dissent argued that only in rare circumstances should closure be allowed and they did not find that this case met this rare occurrence standard.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

This case provides a mixed outcome. Although the Court declined to recognize a right of access for the press in criminal trials under the Sixth Amendment, it made no finding as to whether the First or Fourteenth Amendments would confer this right.

The holding in this case was later expanded in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia Pharmacy, which found that the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and absent factual findings to support closure that override the public’s right to access, a judge cannot summarily decide to close a court proceeding.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

As a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, this decision binds all lower courts.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback