Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Enquirer Motion for Contempt

Enquirer Motion for Contempt

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Motion for contempt against Hunter
Motion for contempt against Hunter

More info:

Published by: Kimball PerryJournalist on Jun 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
FIRST
DISTRICT
COURT OF
APPEALS
HAMILTON
COUNTY,
OHIO
STATE,
x
el.
THE
CINCINNATI
Case
No.
C
300183
ENQUIRER,
Petitioner,
vs.Original
Action
in
Mandamus
HONORABLE
TRACIE
M.
HUNTER,
Respondent.
MOTION
FORCONTEMPT
The
Cincinnati
Enquirer
(
The
Enquirer
")
moves
this
court for
an
orderfinding
The
Honorable Judge
Tracie
Hunter
n
Contempt of
his
Court's
EntryGranting
Alternative
Writ
of
Prohibition
(
the
Writ
").
Judge Hunter
has
placed
restrictions
on
the
right
of
The
Cincinnati
Enquirer
toattend
certain
proceedings
before
Judge
Hunter
in
a
manner
hatviolates
the Writ.
The
Enquirerasks
that
this
Court
acate
that
portion
of
udge
Hunter's
order
that prohibits
The
Enquirer
from
publishing the
names
of
he
Defendants
and
heir
parents.
MEMORANDUM
N
SUPPORTFACTS
Pending
efore
this
Court
s
The
nquirer's
Complaint
or
Writ
of
rohibition,
seeking
to
vacate
certain
orders issued
by
JudgeHunter
prohibiting
The
Enquirer
from
attending
proceedings
in
Hamilton
County
uvenile
Court.
The
roceedings
at
issue are
docketed
as:
In
Re:
.M.,
Case
Nos.
12
-7285;
12
-7305;
In
Re:
T.M.,
Case
Nos.
12
-7288,
12-
7306;
n
Re:
.J.,
Case
Nos.
12
-7279,
12
-7308;
In
Re:
.H.,
Case
Nos.
12
-7366,
12
-7367;
n
Re:
.C.,
Case Nos.
12
-7278,
12
-7307;
In
Re:
D.C.,
Case
Nos.
12-
7304,
2
-7303.
 
(
The
roceedings
").
(A
opy
of
he
Complaint
s
attached hereto
as Exhibit
A).
On
March
29,2013,
this
Court
issued
the
Writ
ordering
Judge
Hunter
to
admit
representatives
of The
Enquirer
to
theProceedings.
(A
Copy
of
he
Writ
is
attached hereto
as
Exhibit
B).
On
une
24,
he
disposition
hearing
in
Case
No.
12
-7366, took
place
in
Hamilton
County
Ohio
Juvenile
Court.This
case
is
covered
by
this
Court's
Entry Granting
Alternative
Writ
of
Prohibition
issued
March
29,
013
At
thebeginning
of
he
hearing,
Judge
Hunter
announced
that
she
had
signed
an
entry
granting
the
application
of
The
Cincinnati
Enquirer
to attend
the hearing
(
the
Entry
").
A
opyof
he
Entry
is
attached hereto
asExhibit
C.
Judge Hunter
read thecontent
of
he
Entry
in
open
court in
rapid
fashion. Part
of
he
Entry
prohibited
The
nquirer
from
publishingthe
namesof
efendants
and
heir
parents
"for
all
current
and
uture
proceedings
regarding
this
matter."
Counsel
for
The
Enquirer
attempted
toobject to
this
portion
of
he Entry,
but
JudgeHunter
efused to hearthe
objection
and
hreatened to
expelcounsel
from
he
courtroom
if
he
did
not
mmediately
sit
down.
(See
Affidavit
of
ohn
C.
reiner).
ARGUMENT
This
Court
nequivocally
stated
inthe
Writ
hat
"representatives
of
The
Enquirer
shall
be
permitted
in
the
courtroom."This
Court
issued
no
conditions
or
restrictions
on
ts
order.
Judge
Hunter's Entry,
however,
ermits
The
Enquirer
toattend
only
if
it
refrains
from
publishingthe
names
of
the
Juvenile
Defendants
and
their
parents.
Although
The
Ohio
Rules
of
Superintendence
12
and
Local
Juvenile
Rule
14
address
restrictions
on
photographing
and
videotaping inJuvenile
Court,
neither
purports to
limit
the
ability
of
newspaper
or
any
member
 
of
he
public
from
publishingthe
name
of
a
uvenile
Defendant.
Thus,
by
placing
restrictions
on
the
right
of
The
Enquirer
to
attend
the
proceedings
that
are
notprovided
for in
the
Ohio
or
Local
Rules,
Judge Hunter
s
in
contempt
of
his
Court's Writ.
In
addition,
theEntry
constitutes
an
unconstitutionalprior
restraint
on
The
Enquirer's
right to
publish
truthful
information.Prior
restraints
on
speech
are
presumptively
unconstitutional,
particularly
restraints
on
reportingcriminal
proceedings.
See
Nebraska
Press
Ass
n
v.
Stuart,
427
U.S. 539,559,
96
S.
Ct.
2791
(1976)
(
the
protection against
prior
restraint
should
have
particular
force
as
applied to reporting
of
riminal
proceedings
").
Consequently,
on
multipleoccasions,
theUnited
States
Supreme
Courthas
held
prior
restraints
on
publication
like
the
one
here
to
violate
the
First
Amendment,
even
in
cases involving
juveniles.
See,
e.g.,
Smith
v.
Daily
Mail
Publ'g
Co.,
443
U.S. 97,
99
S.Ct.
2667
(1979)
West
Virginia
statute
imposing
criminalsanctions for
publication
of
uveniles'
names
held
to
be
a
violation
of
the
First
Amendment);Oklahoma
Publ'g
Co.,
443
U.S.97,
99
S.
Ct.
2667
(1979)
holding
that
court
order
enjoiningpress
from
publishing,
broadcasting,
or
disseminating"the
name
r
picture
of
a
juvenile
was
nconstitutional
prior
restraint
on
peech).
The
cited
decisions
of
he
United
States
Supreme
Court
make
clearthat
Respondent's
conduct
would be
unlawful,
even
if
the
names
of
the
juveniles
were
not
a
matter
of
publicrecord.
In
this
case,
however,
The
Enquirer
lawfully
obtained the
namesof
the
involved
juveniles
from
a
police report
pursuant
to
a
public
records
request.
The
factthat
any
interested
member
of
he generalpublic
not
ust
the press)
could
obtain
the
juveniles'
names
s,
on
ts
own,
sufficient
to
make
Respondent's
order
prohibiting
publication
of
hose
names
unconstitutional.
See
Craig
.
Harney,331
U.S.
367, 374,
67
.
Ct.
1249 1947)
holding
that
those
who
see
and
observe
a
public
trial
"can
report
it
with
impunity"
and
that
"[t]here
is
no
specialperquisite
of
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->