WPC 9 # VUNa % 0(wv4S g 0v 0D N 0JV 0T 0^ 0hR 0r D3, 0|_ 0 0a 1u BfU, 0d 0@U,SU >U*B)DC AMS6[S+H~S1_I2C;!<Y" #$%l&B(Z)* ,J-b.v~0v1 AOg77 0D|8 D/8 B8HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($D UE F DG eH DI DJ K DL M DN UO eP  Q DR US DT UU Ӏa {s 3|xa (D(2$ !  X   `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  $$$$'dxd2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) d<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    <  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d66667Border 1dd-7C << G !%4  55   YYY FILED5X May24,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.5AppellateCourtClerk  !#d#%4   $   X          5Tenn.R.App.P.10. , !#d#%4   $   X          5Statev.Drake,701S.W.2d604,608(Tenn.1985).4 Q !#d#%4   $   X          5Drake,701S.W.2dat608;seeStatev.James,902S.W.2d911(Tenn.1995)4 I !#d#%4   $   X          5Thisruleexemptstheprintmediawhoarenotusingcamerasinthecourtroom.Tenn.Sup.Ct.R.30(F)(5). > !#d#%4   $   X          5JudgeDaileyacknowledgedthattheinformationhewasrelatingwas thirdhandhearsay. I !#d#%4   $   X          5Craigv.Hainey,331U.S.367,374,67S.Ct.1249,1254,91L.Ed.1546(1947).4  !#d#%4   $   X          5Craig,331U.S.at374,67S.Ct.at1254.  !#d#%4   $   X          5Craig,331U.S.at374,67S.Ct.at1254. U !#d#%4   $   X          5SeeOklahomaPublishingCo.v.DistrictCourt,480U.S.308,97S.Ct.1045,51L.Ed.2d355(1977);NebraskaPressAssnv.Stuart,427U.S.539,96S.Ct.2791,49L.Ed.2d683(1976);CoxBroadcastingCorp.v.Cohn,420U.S.469,95S.Ct.1029,43L.Ed.2d328(1975);Sheppardv.Maxwell,384U.S.333,86S.Ct.1507,16L.Ed.2d600(1966). ( !#d#%4   $   X          5384U.S.at36263,86S.Ct.at1522,16L.Ed.2dat620(emphasisadded).  !#d#%4   $   X          5427U.S.at542,96S.Ct.at2795,49L.Ed.2dat688. 9 !#d#%4   $   X          5427U.S.at568,96S.Ct.at2807,49L.Ed.2dat703(emphasisadded)(citationsomitted).  !#d#%4   $   X          5430U.S.at308,97S.Ct.at1045,51L.Ed.2dat357. 2 !#d#%4   $   X          5430U.S.at31012,97S.Ct.at104647,51L.Ed.2dat35859(citationsomitted).  !#d#%4   $   X          5861S.W.2d265(Tex.Ct.App.1993). !#d#%4   $   X          5861S.W.2dat266.  !#d#%4   $   X          5861S.W.2dat268(citationsomitted). b !#d#%4   $   X          5RobertsonCountyNo.01C019601CC00022,slipop.at4,n.2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,April12,1996).4 8 !#d#%4   $   X          5443U.S.368,377,99S.Ct.2898,2904,61L.Ed.2d608,620(1979).4  !#d#%4   $   X          5443U.S.at377,99S.Ct.at2904,61L.Ed.2dat620(quotingfromWeinsteinv.Bradford,423U.S.147,149,96S.Ct.347,349,46L.Ed.2d350,353(1975)).4  !#d#%4   $   X          5884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.App.1994).  !#d#%4   $   X          5709S.W.2d585,587(Tenn.App.1985). @ !#d#%4   $   X          5SeeNebraskaPressAssn,427U.S.at54647,96S.Ct.at2797,49L.Ed.2dat690.  !#d#%4   $   X          5SeeWalkerv.Dunn,498S.W.2d102,104(Tenn.1972);NewRivieraArtsTheatrev.Stateexrel.Davis,219Tenn.652,658,412S.W.2d890,893(1967);McIntyre,884S.W.2dat137.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %&11Xd&#11Xd#4    X   \RA'\5ԛINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEٜL897;+'h|`  `LߛATJACKSON  STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )      )   APPELLEE,  )       ) v.      ) No.02C019604CR00130      )     JAMESMONTGOMERYand  ) ShelbyCountyTONYCARRUTHERS,   )       ) JosephB.Dailey,Judgev.      )      ) (ExtraordinaryAppeal)MEMPHISPUBLISHINGCOMPANY, )      ) INTERVENORAPPELLANT. )FORTHEAPPELLANTS:    FORTHEAPPELLEE:S.RussellHeadrick    CharlesW.BursonAttorneyatLaw     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter80MonroeAvenue,Suite700   450JamesRobertsonParkwayMemphis,TN38103    Nashville,TN372430497PaulE.Prather     AmyL.TarkingtonAttorneyatLaw     AssistantAttorneyGeneral80MonroeAvenue,Suite700   450JamesRobertsonParkwayMemphis,TN38103    Nashville,TN372430493OFCOUNSEL:     JohnW.Pierotti       DistrictAttorneyGeneralArmstrong,Allen,Prewitt,    201PoplarAvenue,ThirdFloorGentry,Johnson&Holmes   Memphis,TN38103       PhillipGeraldHarris       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       201PoplarAvenue,ThirdFloor       Memphis,TN38103       J.RobertCarter       AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral       201PoplarAvenue,ThirdFloor       Memphis,TN38103    OPINIONFILED:_________________________________REVERSEDANDREMANDEDJoeB.Jones,PresidingJudge    7aXXdXXd7OPINION    ThisCourtgrantedMemphisPublishingCompanysapplicationforanextraordinaryappeal :   ׀todeterminewhetheratrialcourtcanbarthemediafrompublishingthenameofaprosecutionwitnesswhenthewitnessappearsinopencourtduringapublictrialanduseshistrueorgivennamewhiletestifying.Inthiscase,thepriorrestraintplaceduponthenameofAndreJohnsonviolatedtherightsguaranteedtoMemphisPublishingCompanybytheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,19oftheTennesseeConstitution.Therefore,thiscauseisreversedandremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.  I.   OnSaturdaymorning,April20,1996,theHonorableJosephB.Daileyruledsuaspontethatthemediawasbarredfrompublishingthenamesofnineprosecutionwitnesses,whoweretotestifyinthecapitalmurdertrialofStatev.JamesMontgomeryandTonyCarruthers.Thispriorrestraintdidnotimpedethemediafromprintingthetestimonygivenbythesewitnesses. CounselfortheMemphisPublishingCompanyarrivedatthecourtroomshortlyaftertheruling.JudgeDaileyandcounselengagedinadiscussionofthefactsandthelawgoverningpriorrestraints.CounselaskedJudgeDaileytoreconsiderhisruling.JudgeDaileyrefusedtorelent.However,JudgeDaileyagreedtomeetwithcounsellaterinthedayaftercounselhadtheopportunitytoresearchthelawcontrollingtheissueincontroversy. JudgeDaileyandcounselfortheMemphisPublishingCompanymetafterthetrialhadrecessedfortheday.Again,JudgeDaileyandcounseldiscussedthefactsandthelaw.CounselbroughttoJudgeDaileysattentionthatapproximatelyonehalfofthenamesonthelistdistributedbyJudgeDaileyhadalreadyappearedinarticlescontainedintheMemphisCommercialAppeal,thenewspaperownedandpublishedbyMemphisPublishingCompany.JudgeDaileysubsequentlyruledthattheMemphisPublishingCompanycouldpublishthenamesofeightofthenineprosecutionwitnesses.However,JudgeDaileykeptthepriorrestraintinplaceonthenameofAndreJohnson.JudgeDaileystatedthathewouldreadthebriefandmaterialsfurnishedbycounselovertheweekendandwouldannouncehisrulingastoAndreJohnsononMondaymorning,April22,1996,at9:00a.m. JudgeDaileyconductedthehearingonMondaymorning.HepermittedtheMemphisPublishingCompanytointerveneinthecriminalcase.HeannouncedthathewasmaintainingthepriorrestraintonAndreJohnsonsname.̀ Shortlyafterthehearing,theMemphisPublishingCompanyfiledanapplicationforextraordinaryappealpursuanttoRule10,Tenn.R.App.P.ThisCourtgrantedtheapplicationonApril23,1996.TheStateofTennesseefiledan AnswerinOppositiontotheApplicationforExtraordinaryAppealonApril26,1996.Nootherpartyhasexpressedaninterestinthislitigation.Furthermore,thepartieshaveagreedthattheydonotwishtomakeoralargumentinsupportoftheirrespectivepositions. ThecaseofStatev.MontgomeryandCarruthersterminatedonFriday,April26,1996.ThejuryconvictedbothMontgomeryandCarruthersofthreecountsofmurderinthefirstdegree,especiallyaggravatedkidnaping,andespeciallyaggravatedrobbery.Thejurysubsequentlyreturnedthreedeathsentencesforbothdefendants,oneforeachvictim.  II.    Theproperwaytotestapriorrestraintisbymotiontointervene.Aninterestedpersonormediarepresentativemustseekpermissiontointervenebeforethepartyhasstandingtocontestthepriorrestraint,and,ultimately,testitintheappellatecourt. =   ׀ Ifapersonorentityhasbeenpermittedtointerveneandthetrialcourtrefusestodissolvethepriorrestraint,theintervenormayseekappellatereviewpursuanttoRule10,Tenn.R.App.P. >   ׀Recently,theTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedRule30,whichgovernsmediacoverageinthecourtroom.ThisruleprovidesanaggrievedpartywiththerighttoseekappellatereviewpursuanttoRule10,Tenn.R.App.P.SeeTenn.Sp.Ct.R.30(E). ?    Inthiscase,theMemphisPublishingCompanysoughtpermissionandwasgrantedtherighttointerveneinthecriminalcase.Whenthetrialcourtrefusedtoremovethepriorrestraint,theMemphisPublishingCompanysoughtappellatereviewinthiscasepursuanttoRule10,Tenn.R.App.P.ThisCourtgrantedtheapplication.Insummary,theMemphisPublishingCompanyisproperlybeforethisCourt.  III.A.    JudgeDaileydidnotconductahearingorhearevidencebeforeplacingthepriorrestraintuponthenameofAndreJohnson.Itappearsthatapotentialprosecutionwitnesssawthenameofapriorprosecutionwitnessnamedinanewspaperarticle,exitedthebackdoorofhishome,andwentintohiding.Thepotentialwitnessfailedtoappearincourtasrequired.AninvestigatorfortheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsOfficesoughtthepotentialwitness.Theinvestigatorinturntoldanassistantdistrictattorneygeneralwhathadoccurred,andtheassistantdistrictattorneygeneraltoldthetrialcourtwhathadbeenreportedtohim. @   ׀JudgeDaileystatedthatplacingthenameofAndreJohnsoninthenewspapermightscareotherwitnessesfromappearingtotestify. ThepriorrestraintdidnotprecludetheMemphisPublishingCompanyfromprintingthetestimony,orexcerptsofthetestimony,givenbyAndreJohnson.Moreover,thenameofAndreJohnsoncanbeprintedbytheMemphisPublishingCompanyafterthetrialhasbeenconcluded. Thiswasapublictrialwherethefamiliesoftheaccused,thefamiliesofthevictims,andinterestedspectatorswerepermittedtoenterthecourtroomandlistentothetestimonyofallofthewitnesses.WhenAndreJohnsonappearedasaprosecutionwitness,heidentifiedhimselfasAndreJohnson;thepeopleinsidethecourtroomheardhimstatehistrueorgivennameaswellasthetestimonythathegave.Ironically,Johnsonwaswellknownapersonalacquaintanceofbothdefendants,MontgomeryandCarruthers.Johnson,likeMontgomeryandCarruthers,wasamemberofagang.He,likethedefendants,traffickedinnarcotics,andhehadbeenpreviouslyconvictedofacriminaloffenseandservedtimefortheoffense.TheMemphisPublishingCompanyprintedthesubstanceofJohnsonstestimony,butdidnotprintJohnsonsname.  B.    Ithaslongbeenestablishedthatwhatoccursinapubliccourtroomconstitutespublicproperty. A   ׀Equallywellestablishedisthatacourtdoesnothavespecialrights whichenablesit,asdistinguishedfromotherinstitutionsofdemocraticgovernment,tosuppress...orcensoreventswhichtranspire[inpublic]proceedingsbeforeit. B   ׀Thus, [t]hosewhoseeandhearwhattranspired[inopencourt]canreportitwithimpunity. C   ׀ TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasreiteratedwhatitsaidinCraigonnumerousoccasions;whenthereisanopen,publictrial,themediahasanabsoluterighttopublishanyinformationthatisdisseminatedduringthecourseofthetrial. D   ׀ThisCourtwilldiscussthesalientportionsofthesedecisions. InSheppardv.Maxwell,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwasconcernedwiththerightoftheaccusedtoreceiveafairtrial.TherewasenormousmediacoveragesurroundingtheprosecutionofDr.Sheppardforthemurderofhiswife.Inruling,thecourtsaidinpart:     Fromthecasescomingherewenotethatunfairandprejudicialnewscommentonpendingtrialshasbecomeincreasinglyprevalent.Dueprocessrequiresthattheaccusedreceiveatrialbyanimpartialjuryfreefromoutsideinfluences.Giventhepervasivenessofmoderncommunicationsandthedifficultyofeffacingprejudicialpublicityfromthemindsofthejurors,thetrialcourtsmusttakestrongmeasurestoensurethatthebalanceisneverweighedagainsttheaccused.Andappellatetribunalshavethedutytomakeanindependentevaluationofthecircumstances.Ofcourse,thereisnothingthatproscribesthepressfromreportingeventsthattranspireinthecourtroom. F     X  InNebraskaPressAssnv.Stuart , thepreliminaryhearingwasopentopublic.However,thecourtenteredanorderthatprohibitedeveryoneinattendancefrom releas[ing]orauthoriz[ing]thereleaseforpublicdisseminationinanyformormannerwhatsoeveranytestimonygivenorevidenceadducedduringthepreliminaryhearing. G   ׀TheSupremeCourt,citingSheppard,heldthatthispriorrestraintviolatedtheFirstAmendment.Inruling,thecourtsaid:     Totheextentthatthisorderprohibitedthereportingofevidenceadducedattheopenpreliminaryhearing,itplainlyviolatedsettledprinciples: thereisnothingthatproscribesthepressfromreportingeventsthattranspireinthecourtroom....TheCountyCourtcouldnotknowthatclosureofthepreliminaryhearingwasanalternativeopentoituntiltheNebraskaSupremeCourtsoconstruedstatelaw;butonceapublichearinghadbeenheld,whattranspiredtherecouldnotbesubjecttopriorrestraint. H   ׀   X  InOklahomaPublishingCo.v.DistrictCourt,thetrialcourtenteredapretrialorderwhich enjoinedmembersofthenewsmediafrompublishing,broadcasting,ordisseminatinginanymanner,thenameorpictureof[a]minorchild. I   ׀TheOklahomaPublishingCompanychallengedthepriorrestraintcreatedbythetrialcourt.Inruling,thecourtsaid:    PetitionerasksustoonlyholdthattheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentswillnotpermitastatecourttoprohibitthepublicationofwidelydisseminatedinformationobtainedatcourtproceedingswhichwereinfactopentothepublic.WethinkthisresultiscompelledbyourrecentdecisionsinNebraskaPressAssn.v.Stuart....,andCoxBroadcastingCorp.v.Cohn....  ****   Thecourtbelowfoundtherationaleofthesedecisionstobeinapplicableherebecauseastatestatuteprovidedforclosedjuvenilehearingsunlessspecificallyopenedtothepublicbycourtorderandbecause thereisnoindicationthatthejudgedistinctlyandexpresslyorderedthehearingtobepublic.WethinkCoxandNebraskaPressarecontrollingnonetheless.Whetherornotthetrialjudgeexpresslymadesuchanorder,membersofthepresswereinfactpresentatthehearingwiththefullknowledgeofthepresidingjudge,theprosecutor,andthedefensecounsel.Noobjectionwasmadetothepresenceofthepressinthecourtroomortothephotographingofthejuvenileasheleftthecourthouse.ThereisnoevidencethatpetitioneracquiredtheinformationunlawfullyorevenwithouttheStatesimplicitapproval.Thenameandpictureofthejuvenileherewere publiclyrevealedinconnectionwiththeprosecutionofthecrime....Underthesecircumstances,theDistrictCourtsorderabridgesthefreedomofthepressinviolationoftheFirstandFourteenthAmendments. J     X  InSanAntonioExpressNewsv.Roman, K   ׀acasestrikinglysimilartothiscase,twominorwitnessestestifiedasdefensewitnesses.Whentheminorscompletedtheirrespectivetestimony, thetrialcourtordered...thenewsmediaingeneralnottobroadcast,report,orpublishthenamesofthesetwominorwitnesses. L   ׀Inholdingthattheorderofthetrialcourtviolatedtheconstitutionalrightsofthemedia,theTexasCourtofAppealssaid:       X 8 8  Intheinstantcase,thetrialwasopentothepublicandwasattendedbythegeneralpublicaswellasthemedia.Thetestifyingminorsidentifiedthemselvesbyfirstandlastnamesandgavepublictestimony.Norequesttoconcealtheiridentitieswasmadepriortotheirgivingtestimony.Oncetheirnameswereplacedinthepublicrecord,beforeacourtroomofspectators,noconstitutionallyvalidreasontolimitaccesstothatinformationexisted....Thetrialcourtclearlyabuseditsdiscretioninenteringthegagorder. M    Insummary,onceAndreJohnsontestifiedinopencourtandrevealedhisfirstandlastname,novalidreasonexistedforthepriorrestraintonJohnsonsname.ThetrialcourtsrefusaltoremovethepriorrestraintviolatedtheFirstAmendmentrightsoftheMemphisPublishingCompanyanditsemployees.Thelawiscrystalclear:themediamaypublishthenamesandtestimonyofwitnessestestifyinginopencourtduringapublictrialwithimpunity.AnyrestraintplacedonthisrightisviolativeoftheFirstAmendment.  IV. ̛   TheStateofTennesseehasfiledamotiontodismissthisappeal.ThemotionallegesthattheissuetobedecidedismootbecausethetrialhasendedandthepriorrestraintonthenameofAndreJohnson hasbeenremoved.ThetrialcourtruledthattheMemphisPublishingCompanycouldpublishJohnsonsnameafterthetrialhadended.TheMemphisPublishingCompany,relyingontheexceptionstothemootnessdoctrine,arguesthatthisCourtshouldaddresstheissueonthemeritssinceitinvolvesaconstitutionalright. Thisjurisdictionrecognizestwoexceptionstothemootnessdoctrine.First,iftheerroriscapableofrepetitionbutmayevadeappellatereview , anappellatecourtmayaddresstheissueonthemerits.Second,iftheissuetobedecidedisofgreatpublicinterestandimportanttotheadministrationofjustice,anappellatecourtmayaddresstheissueonthemerits.BothoftheseexceptionswererecognizedintherecentcaseofStatev.MorrowandMeredithCorp., N   wherethisCourtaddressedaviolationofRule30,TennesseeSupremeCourt.ThisCourtaddressedtheissuenotwithstandingthefactthetrialhadendedandthereliefsoughtcouldnotbeimplemented.  A.   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaddressedthefirstexceptiontothemootnessruleinGannettCo.v.DePasquale. O   ׀AstheCourtsaidinGannett:8 8 Tomeetthattest,twoconditionsmustbesatisfied: (1)thechallengedactionwasinitsdurationtooshorttobefullylitigatedpriortoitscessationorexpiration,and(2)therewasareasonableexpectationthatthesamecomplainingpartywouldbesubjectedtothesameactionagain. P   ThisexceptionisrecognizedinMcIntyrev.Traughber Q   ׀andLaRouchev.Crowell. R   ׀ Theseconditionshavebeenmetinthiscase.Therulingcamewithinthelastweekofthetrial.Itexpiredattheconclusionofthetrial.Thus,itwastooshortindurationtopermitfullreview.Ifthisprocedureisnotcorrectedatthistime,thereiscertainlyareasonableexpectationthattheprocedureinquestioncouldberepeated. S     B.   Thesecondexception,issuesofgreatpublicinterestandimportancetotheadministrationofjustice,hasbeenrecognizedinseveralcases. T   ׀TheFirstAmendmentrightsofthepressarealwaysofgreatpublicinterestandareofvitalimportancetotheadministrationofjusticeinthisstate.Asaresult,theappellatecourtsofthisstatehavezealouslyguardedtheFirstAmendmentrightsoftheprintandelectronicmedia.      _______________________________________      JOEB.JONES,PRESIDINGJUDGE̜CONCUR:___________________________________̀PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE_____________________________________̀ DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE