IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00390-CR
IN RE MATTHEW ALAN CLENDENNEN
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Matthew Alan Clendennen seeks a writ of mandamus compelling
Respondent, the Honorable Doug Shaver, sitting as judge of the 54th District Court of
McLennan County, to vacate a gag order that Respondent signed on October 24, 2017.
We requested a response to Clendennen’s petition for writ of mandamus. The State
replied that it would not be filing a response. We will conditionally grant the requested
relief.
A gag order was initially signed in the underlying case on June 30, 2015.
Clendennen sought mandamus relief in this Court. Based on this Court’s opinion in In
re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding), and the authorities
cited therein, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the June 30, 2015 gag order and conditionally granted Clendennen’s petition for writ of
mandamus. See In re Clendennen, No. 10-15-00235-CR, 2015 WL 4730554, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Waco Aug. 7, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication),
mand. denied sub nom. State ex rel. Reyna v. Court of Appeals for Tenth Dist., No. WR-83,719-
01, 2016 WL 9000796 (Tex. Jun. 15, 2016) (not designated for publication). Accordingly,
the June 30, 2015 gag order was vacated.
Respondent signed another gag order in the underlying case on October 24, 2017.
The October 24, 2017 gag order contains only minor differences from the June 30, 2015
gag order. The substantive differences are as follows:
1. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court took judicial notice of (1) “the unusually emotional nature of the issues involved in this case,” (2) “the extensive local and national media coverage this case has already generated,” and (3) “the various and numerous media interviews with counsel for the parties that have been published and broadcast by local and national media.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court took judicial notice of (1) through (3), as well as “the filings of counsel.”
2. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “counsels’ willingness to give interviews to the media would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial publicity.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “counsel’s willingness to give interviews to the media and make statements calculated to attract media attention would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial publicity.” [Emphasis added.]
3. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “no less restrictive alternative means exists to treat the specific threat to the judicial process generated by this pre-trial publicity.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court made the same finding but added:
[T]he facts and circumstances regarding the Defendant’s pending motions have been heavily reported by local media, and jury selection is scheduled to begin with the distribution of juror questionnaires on Friday, October 27th. While normally an effective tool at screening for the effect of pre-trial publicity, the
In re Clendennen Page 2 possibility of ongoing exposure of the venire to media coverage of the proceedings after the distribution and completion of these questionnaires is high. A venire panel questioned on October 9, 2017 in a related case resulted in numerous strikes for cause due to pretrial publicity.
4. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court ordered: “All attorneys, their staffs, and law enforcement officers involved in this case shall not discuss this case with the media.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court ordered: “All attorneys, their staffs, and law enforcement officers involved in this case shall not discuss this case with the media, except as those discussions pertain to scheduling matters.” [Emphasis added.]
Clendennen argues that the October 24, 2017 gag order violates (1) the law of the
case; (2) article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution; and (3) the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that the October 24, 2017
gag order violates article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
In Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding), the supreme
court held that the gag order in that case was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the
“free expression” guarantee of article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution and developed
the following test to determine whether a prior restraint on expression violates that
provision:
Since the dimensions of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are continually evolving, today we build on our prior decisions by affirming that a prior restraint on expression is presumptively unconstitutional. With this concept in mind, we adopt the following test: a gag order in civil judicial proceedings will withstand constitutional scrutiny only where there are specific findings supported by evidence that (1) an imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just resolution of their dispute, and (2) the judicial action represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm.
In re Clendennen Page 3 Id. at 10; see TEX. CONST. art. I, § 8. Although Davenport involved a gag order in a civil
case, it has been applied to similar orders in criminal cases, including the gag order in
Graves. See Graves, 217 S.W.3d at 749.
Clendennen argues that the October 24, 2017 gag order fails the Davenport test
because “Respondent made no true ‘specific findings’ as to whether pretrial publicity
would truly impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and whether it was the [least]
restrictive means to prevent any harm.” We agree. Beyond mentioning media interviews
with counsel, Respondent has failed to make “specific findings” detailing the nature or
extent of the pretrial publicity. Respondent has also failed to make “specific findings”
detailing how the pretrial publicity will impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and
why such harm cannot be sufficiently cured by remedial action.
It appears that Respondent attempted to address how the pretrial publicity will
impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and why such harm cannot be sufficiently
cured by remedial action by including in the order that the distribution of juror
questionnaires is normally an effective tool at screening for the effect of pretrial publicity
but that the possibility of ongoing exposure of the venire to media coverage of the
proceedings is high and that the venire panel questioned in a related case resulted in
numerous strikes for cause due to pretrial publicity. But the gag order does not indicate
that the pretrial publicity in the related case resulted in the inability to seat a fair and
impartial jury. Instead, the gag order implies that, even though some potential jurors
were stricken for cause, a fair and impartial jury was able to be seated.
In re Clendennen Page 4 For these reasons, we cannot conclude that Respondent has made “specific
findings” that the pretrial publicity will cause “imminent and irreparable harm to the
judicial process” or that the gag order “represents the least restrictive means to prevent
that harm.” See Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 10-11; Graves, 217 S.W.3d at 752-53. Accordingly,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00390-CR
IN RE MATTHEW ALAN CLENDENNEN
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Matthew Alan Clendennen seeks a writ of mandamus compelling
Respondent, the Honorable Doug Shaver, sitting as judge of the 54th District Court of
McLennan County, to vacate a gag order that Respondent signed on October 24, 2017.
We requested a response to Clendennen’s petition for writ of mandamus. The State
replied that it would not be filing a response. We will conditionally grant the requested
relief.
A gag order was initially signed in the underlying case on June 30, 2015.
Clendennen sought mandamus relief in this Court. Based on this Court’s opinion in In
re Graves, 217 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding), and the authorities
cited therein, we concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the June 30, 2015 gag order and conditionally granted Clendennen’s petition for writ of
mandamus. See In re Clendennen, No. 10-15-00235-CR, 2015 WL 4730554, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Waco Aug. 7, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication),
mand. denied sub nom. State ex rel. Reyna v. Court of Appeals for Tenth Dist., No. WR-83,719-
01, 2016 WL 9000796 (Tex. Jun. 15, 2016) (not designated for publication). Accordingly,
the June 30, 2015 gag order was vacated.
Respondent signed another gag order in the underlying case on October 24, 2017.
The October 24, 2017 gag order contains only minor differences from the June 30, 2015
gag order. The substantive differences are as follows:
1. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court took judicial notice of (1) “the unusually emotional nature of the issues involved in this case,” (2) “the extensive local and national media coverage this case has already generated,” and (3) “the various and numerous media interviews with counsel for the parties that have been published and broadcast by local and national media.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court took judicial notice of (1) through (3), as well as “the filings of counsel.”
2. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “counsels’ willingness to give interviews to the media would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial publicity.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “counsel’s willingness to give interviews to the media and make statements calculated to attract media attention would only serve to increase the volume of pre-trial publicity.” [Emphasis added.]
3. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court made the finding that “no less restrictive alternative means exists to treat the specific threat to the judicial process generated by this pre-trial publicity.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court made the same finding but added:
[T]he facts and circumstances regarding the Defendant’s pending motions have been heavily reported by local media, and jury selection is scheduled to begin with the distribution of juror questionnaires on Friday, October 27th. While normally an effective tool at screening for the effect of pre-trial publicity, the
In re Clendennen Page 2 possibility of ongoing exposure of the venire to media coverage of the proceedings after the distribution and completion of these questionnaires is high. A venire panel questioned on October 9, 2017 in a related case resulted in numerous strikes for cause due to pretrial publicity.
4. In the June 30, 2015 gag order, the trial court ordered: “All attorneys, their staffs, and law enforcement officers involved in this case shall not discuss this case with the media.” In the October 24, 2017 gag order, the trial court ordered: “All attorneys, their staffs, and law enforcement officers involved in this case shall not discuss this case with the media, except as those discussions pertain to scheduling matters.” [Emphasis added.]
Clendennen argues that the October 24, 2017 gag order violates (1) the law of the
case; (2) article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution; and (3) the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that the October 24, 2017
gag order violates article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
In Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding), the supreme
court held that the gag order in that case was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the
“free expression” guarantee of article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution and developed
the following test to determine whether a prior restraint on expression violates that
provision:
Since the dimensions of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties are continually evolving, today we build on our prior decisions by affirming that a prior restraint on expression is presumptively unconstitutional. With this concept in mind, we adopt the following test: a gag order in civil judicial proceedings will withstand constitutional scrutiny only where there are specific findings supported by evidence that (1) an imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just resolution of their dispute, and (2) the judicial action represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm.
In re Clendennen Page 3 Id. at 10; see TEX. CONST. art. I, § 8. Although Davenport involved a gag order in a civil
case, it has been applied to similar orders in criminal cases, including the gag order in
Graves. See Graves, 217 S.W.3d at 749.
Clendennen argues that the October 24, 2017 gag order fails the Davenport test
because “Respondent made no true ‘specific findings’ as to whether pretrial publicity
would truly impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and whether it was the [least]
restrictive means to prevent any harm.” We agree. Beyond mentioning media interviews
with counsel, Respondent has failed to make “specific findings” detailing the nature or
extent of the pretrial publicity. Respondent has also failed to make “specific findings”
detailing how the pretrial publicity will impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and
why such harm cannot be sufficiently cured by remedial action.
It appears that Respondent attempted to address how the pretrial publicity will
impact the right to a fair and impartial jury and why such harm cannot be sufficiently
cured by remedial action by including in the order that the distribution of juror
questionnaires is normally an effective tool at screening for the effect of pretrial publicity
but that the possibility of ongoing exposure of the venire to media coverage of the
proceedings is high and that the venire panel questioned in a related case resulted in
numerous strikes for cause due to pretrial publicity. But the gag order does not indicate
that the pretrial publicity in the related case resulted in the inability to seat a fair and
impartial jury. Instead, the gag order implies that, even though some potential jurors
were stricken for cause, a fair and impartial jury was able to be seated.
In re Clendennen Page 4 For these reasons, we cannot conclude that Respondent has made “specific
findings” that the pretrial publicity will cause “imminent and irreparable harm to the
judicial process” or that the gag order “represents the least restrictive means to prevent
that harm.” See Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 10-11; Graves, 217 S.W.3d at 752-53. Accordingly,
we hold that the October 24, 2017 gag order violates article I, section 8 of the Texas
Constitution. See Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 10; Graves, 217 S.W.3d at 753. We need not
address Clendennen’s law-of-the-case or First Amendment claims.
We therefore conditionally grant Clendennen’s “Amended Emergency Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.” A writ will issue only if Respondent fails to vacate his gag order
issued on October 24, 2017, and to notify this Court in writing that he has done so within
seven days from the date of this opinion. Clendennen’s “Amended Motion for Stay of
Gag Order or, in the Alternative, for Emergency Relief” and “Second Motion for Stay of
Gag Order” are dismissed as moot.
REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurring with a note)* Petition granted Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2018 Do not publish [OT06]
In re Clendennen Page 5 * (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the Court’s judgment to the extent it determines the trial court erred in rendering the Gag Order. A separate opinion will not issue. He notes, however, that there is nothing substantively different with this gag order than the one previously rejected and thus rejects this one with equal dispatch. See Clendennen I cited therein.)
In re Clendennen Page 6