In Re Derderian

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island
DecidedOctober 12, 2006
DocketM.P. No. 06-835
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Derderian (In Re Derderian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Derderian, (R.I. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

DECISION
The issue before the Court relates to the criminal case ofState v. Michael Derderian, case number K1-03-0655A. On February 20, 2003, the Defendant's nightclub, The Station, burned to the ground, killing 100 people. The Defendant was charged with 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter under the criminal negligence theory and 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor manslaughter theory.

The Court, the Defense Counsel, and the Attorney General's Office realized that, due to the overwhelming media exposure and the highly controversial nature of this case, many problems would arise in selecting an impartial jury. It was determined that, to assist the parties in this difficult task, the Court should make every effort to obtain as much information as possible about the venire persons prior to trial, including information about their attitudes, opinions and possible prejudices on various topics pertinent to the case, as well as a comprehensive personal history of each prospective juror. To that end, the Court, with input from both parties, developed a 32-page preliminary jury questionnaire in preparation of the voir dire process.

The purpose of the questionnaire was two-fold. First, it was meant to speed up the voir dire process by eliminating days of repetitious questioning, an efficiency the parties considered essential for a trial already scheduled to last numerous months. Second, and more importantly, the questionnaire was meant to elicit candid and complete answers to the questions of counsel and the Court so that the parties could select an impartial jury, despite the fact that most potential jurors would have heard of — and likely have opinions about — the Defendant and the events underlying this case.

On the mornings and afternoons of September 5th and 6th, 421 individuals filled out the questionnaires under the supervision of the Jury Commissioner. The Jury Commissioner returned the filled-in questionnaires to the Court, and the Court made and delivered copies to both parties. By Court order, no one else was given access to these questionnaires. After the State and the Defendant each had an opportunity to review approximately 200 filled-in questionnaires, they each submitted a list of those potential jurors in that group that they hoped the Court would excuse for cause. However, before the Court so excused any individual, before the parties had an opportunity to evaluate the remainder of the jury questionnaires, and before any potential juror was subjected to any in-court questioning, the Defendant changed his plea to nolo contendere on the 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter under the misdemeanor manslaughter theory. On September 29th, this Court accepted the plea and sentenced the Defendant accordingly.

Prior to the Defendant's change of plea, and the imposition of his sentence, the Providence Journal Company ("Petitioner") petitioned this Court to access the preliminary jury questionnaires used in this case. During a telephone conversation on September 6th, a reporter from the Petitioner requested from a representative of this Court a copy of the blank questionnaire. The Court subsequently denied this oral request, suggesting that the Petitioner file an official petition in order to hear the merits of its argument, and to see if either the State or the Defendant objected. On September 11th, the Petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition based on theFirst Amendment right of access to criminal trials. Maintaining that the Court's blanket closure of the juror questionnaire was insufficient under federal and state law, the Petitioner requested copies of the blank questionnaire, the filled-in questionnaires and access "to all proceedings related to jury selection."

The State filed an objection to this miscellaneous petition, arguing that the press' right to access criminal trials is not absolute and should not be granted in this instance. There were two compelling governmental interests which the State said in this case rebutted the presumption of the "openness" of the preliminary juror questionnaires requested by the Petitioner. First, the State argued that government has a legitimate interest in the right of individual privacy as it applies to the potential jurors who filled out the questionnaires. Second, the State reasoned that the government has an interest in upholding theSixth Amendment right to a fair trial as it applies to all defendants within the criminal justice system, a right that would be infringed if future potential jurors were less forthcoming in their responses to preliminary jury questionnaires for fear of public exposure. The State considered the Court's closure regarding the blank and filled-in questionnaires necessary and narrowly tailored to protect legitimate governmental interests.

On October 4, 2006, Petitioner responded to the State's objection, as well as to the Defendant's change of plea. After arguing that Defendant's plea removed all Sixth Amendment considerations from the issue at bar, the Petitioner went on to describe what it considered to be, under the relevant case law, the appropriate process for evaluating privacy rights in light of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. The Petitioner claimed that the prospective juror must first have made an affirmative request for an in camera hearing in order for the Court's closure based on privacy concerns to be proper. Alternatively, the Petitioner claimed that a privacy right only trumps theFirst Amendment right of access to criminal trials when "socially sensitive issues" — such as a history of rape or a racial bias — are raised during the voir dire process. Unaware of any affirmative requests for an in camera hearing or of any socially sensitive issues raised by the jury questionnaire, the Petitioner once again submitted that the information gathered by the Court did not warrant protection from disclosure. Specifically, the Petitioner requested information regarding the prospective jurors' possible acknowledged predispositions or biases in this case, arguing that this in no way should be considered a matter of private concern.

After making the specific findings of fact required under Rhode Island case law, the Court holds today that the Petitioner's motion is denied as to the filled-in questionnaires, but is granted as to a copy of the blank questionnaire, which will be released at the time this decision is entered. Alternatively, the Court holds that, as no juror was called to be orally questioned and no jury was actually seated in this case, the release of the filled-in juror questionnaires serves no legitimate public interest under the First Amendment except to engage in rank speculation or to satisfy idle curiosity about what jurors, if any, may have been seated in this case or what role, if any, the jury questionnaires may have had in the Defendants' motives to change their plea.

THE PETITIONER'S MOTION IS NOT MOOT
The Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the Petitioner's motion under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl 1. ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases [and] Controversies. . . ."). Although Defendant has changed his plea to

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Brown
250 F.3d 907 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Estes v. Texas
381 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Sheppard v. Maxwell
384 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Weinstein v. Bradford
423 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart
427 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
448 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1980)
In Re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994
889 F. Supp. 296 (S.D. Ohio, 1995)
Witt v. Moran
572 A.2d 261 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1990)
Morris v. D'AMARIO
416 A.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1980)
Lesher Communications, Inc. v. Superior Court
224 Cal. App. 3d 774 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Bellas v. Superior Court of Alameda County
102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 380 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Edward A. Sherman Publishing Co. v. Goldberg
443 A.2d 1252 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1982)
Providence Journal Co. v. Superior Court
593 A.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1991)
United States v. King
140 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Cable News Network, Inc. v. United States
824 F.2d 1046 (D.C. Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Derderian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-derderian-risuperct-2006.