State v. Franzese

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Franzese

580 A.2d 538, 23 Conn. App. 433, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 345

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedSeptember 18, 1990

Docket9479; 9484

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 580 A.2d 538 (State v. Franzese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Franzese, 580 A.2d 538, 23 Conn. App. 433, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 345 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellants, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The Advocate, a daily-newspaper with circulation in lower Fairfield County, and Cablevision of Connecticut Limited Partnership, operator of a television outlet serving the same area, were granted permission to intervene in this matter to object to the defendant’s motion to close further bail proceedings from the public and the news media. They take this appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-164x, from the decision of the trial court granting closure.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and are satisfied that the standards enunciated in Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986), apply. The defendant has failed to show that there is a substantial likelihood that irreparable damage to a fair trial will result from conducting public proceedings. Nor has he shown that alternatives to closure will not adequately protect his right to a fair trial, or that closure will be effective in protecting against the preceived harm.

The order of the trial court closing further bail proceedings is vacated.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellants, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The Advocate, a daily-newspaper with circulation in lower Fairfield County, and Cablevision of Connecticut Limited Partnership, operator of a television outlet serving the same area, were granted permission to intervene in this matter to object to the defendant’s motion to close further bail proceedings from the public and the news media. They take this appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-164x, from the decision of the trial court granting closure.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and are satisfied that the standards enunciated in Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986), apply. The defendant has failed to show that there is a substantial likelihood that irreparable damage to a fair trial will result from conducting public proceedings. Nor has he shown that alternatives to closure will not adequately protect his right to a fair trial, or that closure will be effective in protecting against the preceived harm.

The order of the trial court closing further bail proceedings is vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 A.2d 538, 23 Conn. App. 433, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franzese-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack