State Ex Rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Rose

271 So. 2d 483
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 18, 1972
Docket72-1033
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 271 So. 2d 483 (State Ex Rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Rose, 271 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

271 So.2d 483 (1972)

STATE of Florida ex rel. the MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Relator,
v.
The Honorable William Lamar ROSE, Court of Record Judge, Respondent.

No. 72-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 18, 1972.

Daniel P.S. Paul and John-Edward Alley of Paul & Thomson, Miami, for petitioner.

William Lamar Rose, pro se.

Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State's Atty., Fort Myers, for respondent.

Morton A. Goldberg, Fort Myers, for defendant David Hedden.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on a Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition in which the relator is seeking to prohibit enforcement of a pretrial order in a murder case (State of Florida v. David Hedden, Case No. F 72-281, Court of Record, Lee County) restricting communications media in their reports of the trial. The relator makes no objections to those portions of the order prohibiting photographs within the area described but objects solely to that portion of the order prohibiting it *484 from publishing any information about the case except testimony presented in open court, including hearings in chambers. To the extent that the order operates as a prior restraint upon constitutionally privileged publication or communication it is invalid. The trial judge has ample power to insure a fair trial for Hedden without suppressing relator's first amendment rights; for example the jury has been sequestered and other procedural safeguards have been taken.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4.5 (g), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and rather than proceeding in prohibition, the order under attack is hereby stayed. See, New York Times Co. v. U.S., 1971, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822, and cases therein cited.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Pensacola News-Journal, Inc. v. Fleet
388 So. 2d 1106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Sentinel Star Co. v. Edwards
387 So. 2d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
State Ex Rel. Miami Herald Pub. v. McIntosh
340 So. 2d 904 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
Cooper v. Rockford Newspapers, Inc.
339 N.E.2d 477 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. McIntosh
322 So. 2d 544 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Gore Newspapers Company v. Tyson
313 So. 2d 777 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
United States v. Schiavo
504 F.2d 1 (Third Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 So. 2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-miami-herald-publishing-co-v-rose-fladistctapp-1972.