IN RE: NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (2019)

Petitions seeking an order, pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, directing respondent Hon. James.  M. Burke, in his capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County, to unseal the record of the Molineux/Sandoval hearing held on April 26, 2019, in an underlying criminal prosecution, unanimously denied, and the proceedings dismissed, without costs.

In the underlying highly-publicized prosecution of a well-known entertainment-industry figure for felonious sexual misconduct, Supreme Court properly closed the Molineux/Sandoval hearing to the public and sealed documents relating to that hearing.  While the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials (see Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 [1980]), this right of access may be limited where courtroom closure is necessitated by a compelling state governmental interest, and where the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest (see Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 509–510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 [1984]).  Such compelling interests may include the defendant's right to a fair trial, including the right to “fundamental fairness in the jury selection process” (id. at 510, 104 S.Ct. 819;  see also Matter of Gannett Co. v. De Pasquale, 43 N.Y.2d 370, 380, 401 N.Y.S.2d 756, 372 N.E.2d 544 [1977] [“At the point where press commentary on those hearings would threaten the impaneling of a constitutionally impartial jury in the county of venue, pretrial evidentiary hearings in this State are presumptively to be closed to the public”], affd 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 [1979]).

Proceedings cannot be closed unless specific findings are made on the record, demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest” (Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1, 13–14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 [1986] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Where the interest asserted is the right of the accused to a fair trial, specific findings must be made demonstrating that, “there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,” and “reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights” (id. at 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735).

The subject matter of the Molineux/Sandoval hearing—allegations of prior uncharged sexual offenses by the defendant, the admissibility of which is disputed—was likely to be prejudicial and inflammatory.  Further, some or all of the allegations may have been determined to be inadmissible at trial, or may not be offered at trial even if found potentially admissible.  Contrary to petitioners' suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public.  Given the worldwide media scrutiny this case has received, the motion court reasonably concluded that the sealing of documents relating to this single pretrial hearing was the only way to prevent tainting the jury pool with such inadmissible, prejudicial information (see De Pasquale, 43 N.Y.2d at 379, 401 N.Y.S.2d 756, 372 N.E.2d 544 [“Suppressed evidence should not be used to determine a defendant's guilt, not at trial and certainly not before trial through publication ․ by the media”];  see also Matter of Daily News v. Teresi, 265 A.D.2d 129, 133, 706 N.Y.S.2d 527 [3d Dept. 2000], appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 902, 716 N.Y.S.2d 641, 739 N.E.2d 1146 [2000];  Matter of Gannett Co. v. Falvey, 181 A.D.2d 1038, 1038–1039, 582 N.Y.S.2d 580 [4th Dept. 1992], lv dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 866, 587 N.Y.S.2d 899, 600 N.E.2d 626 [1992]).  We note that, to the extent information discussed at the hearing is determined to be admissible, such information will become public if and when it is introduced at trial.

Justice James M. Burke has elected, pursuant to CPLR 7804(i), not to appear in this proceeding.