Supreme Court Ruling Oahu Publications v. The Honorable Karen Anh

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WESTS HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

- - - o0o- - -

OAHU PUBLI CATI ONS I NC. , dba The Honol ul u St ar - Adver t i ser ,
a Hawai i cor por at i on, and KHNL/ KGMB, LLC, dba Hawai i
News Now, a Del awar e cor por at i on, Pet i t i oner s,

vs.

THE HONORABLE KAREN S. S. AHN, Ci r cui t Cour t
J udge of t he Ci r cui t Cour t of t he Fi r st Ci r cui t ,
Respondent J udge,

and

THE STATE OF HAWAI I and CHRI STOPHER DEEDY, Respondent s.

SCPW- 13- 0003250

ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG
( CR. NO. 11- 1- 1647)

J ULY 16, 2014

RECKTENWALD, C. J . , NAKAYAMA AND POLLACK, J J . ,
CI RCUI T J UDGE BROWNI NG I N PLACE OF ACOBA, J . , RECUSED, AND
CI RCUI T J UDGE KUBO I N PLACE OF McKENNA, J . , RECUSED

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0003250
16-JUL-2014
09:07 AM

- 2 -

OPI NI ON OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J .

Thi s case r equi r es us t o addr ess t he pr ocedur es t hat a
cour t must under t ake t o pr ot ect t he const i t ut i onal r i ght of t he
publ i c t o at t end cr i mi nal t r i al s whi l e al so pr ot ect i ng a
def endant s pot ent i al l y count er vai l i ng const i t ut i onal r i ght t o a
f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y. Addi t i onal l y, we addr ess t he
pr ocedur es t hat a cour t i s r equi r ed t o f ol l ow bef or e denyi ng
publ i c access t o a t r anscr i pt of a cl osed pr oceedi ng.
These i mpor t ant i ssues ar i se out of pet i t i ons f or
wr i t s of pr ohi bi t i on and mandamus by Oahu Publ i cat i ons I nc. , dba
The Honol ul u St ar - Adver t i ser ( Honol ul u St ar - Adver t i ser ) , and
KHNL/ KGMB, LLC, dba Hawai i News Now ( Hawai i News Now)
( col l ect i vel y, Pet i t i oner s) . The pet i t i ons wer e f i l ed af t er t he
cour t conduct ed f i ve separ at e cour t pr oceedi ngs t hat wer e not
open t o t he publ i c, and t hen subsequent l y seal ed t he t r anscr i pt
of t hese cour t sessi ons. The r el evant pr oceedi ngs t ook pl ace on
August 26, 2013, dur i ng t he t r i al of St at e v. Deedy, No. 1PC11-
1- 001647, on t he f i f t h day of j ur y del i ber at i ons. Lat er on t hat
same day, t he ci r cui t cour t decl ar ed a mi st r i al as a r esul t of a
deadl ocked j ur y.
The Pet i t i oner s r equest ed t wo wr i t s. The f i r st , a
wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on, woul d pr ohi bi t t he ci r cui t cour t f r om
enf or ci ng any or der seal i ng por t i ons of t he August 26, 2013
pr oceedi ngs and woul d or der t he ci r cui t cour t t o unseal al l

- 3 -

t r anscr i pt s f r omt hat dat e. The second, a wr i t of mandamus,
woul d pr ohi bi t t he ci r cui t cour t f r omcl osi ng t he cour t r oomi n a
si mi l ar manner i n a r e- t r i al of St at e v. Deedy and i n any ot her
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng.
As expl ai ned bel ow, t he r el i ef r equest ed by t he
Pet i t i oner s wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on was subsequent l y pr ovi ded
f ol l owi ng a r emand of t he mat t er t o t he ci r cui t cour t ; t her ef or e
t he wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on i s di smi ssed. We al so deny t he wr i t of
mandamus t hat seeks t o per empt or i l y pr ohi bi t J udge Kar en S. S.
Ahn ( J udge Ahn) f r omagai n cl osi ng her cour t r oomunl ess speci f i c
st eps ar e f ol l owed. However , i n r ecogni t i on of t he r i ght s and
pr ot ect i ons decl ar ed by t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t and t he
Hawai i Const i t ut i on, we adopt pr ocedur es t o gui de our cour t s i n
t he f ut ur e when maki ng a det er mi nat i on whet her t o cl ose cour t
pr oceedi ngs or t o deny publ i c access t o t he t r anscr i pt of t he
cl osed pr oceedi ng.
1. Factual Background
Thi s or i gi nal pr oceedi ng r esul t ed f r omcour t
pr oceedi ngs t hat wer e not open t o t he publ i c and f r omt he
seal i ng of t he t r anscr i pt of t hose pr oceedi ngs dur i ng t he t r i al
of U. S. St at e Depar t ment Speci al Agent Chr i st opher Deedy ( Deedy
or t he Def endant ) , who was char ged wi t h mur der i n t he second
degr ee f or shoot i ng and causi ng t he deat h of a pat r on i n a f ast
f ood r est aur ant i n Wai ki ki . The t r i al i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t of

- 4 -

t he Fi r st Ci r cui t ( ci r cui t cour t ) was pr esi ded over by J udge Ahn
and l ast ed appr oxi mat el y f i ve weeks unt i l a mi st r i al was
decl ar ed. Consi der abl e publ i c at t ent i on and medi a cover age was
devot ed t o t he t r i al .
A. The non-public proceedings and sealing of the transcript
On August 26, 2013, dur i ng t he f i f t h day of j ur y
del i ber at i ons, J udge Ahn hel d f i ve cour t pr oceedi ngs t hat wer e
not open t o t he publ i c, wi t h t he pr osecut or , def ense counsel ,
and Deedy t o addr ess mat t er s r el at i ng t o t he j ur y. Fol l owi ng
t he l ast of t hese pr oceedi ngs, t he ci r cui t cour t seal ed t he
por t i ons of t he t r anscr i pt t hat per t ai ned t o t hese cour t
sessi ons. A par t i al t r anscr i pt of t he August 26, 2013
pr oceedi ngs, ent i t l ed Par t i al Tr anscr i pt of Pr oceedi ngs, not es
t he f i r st t hr ee pr oceedi ngs as bei ng hel d under seal , wi t h t he
t i mes i ndi cat ed:
( Pr oceedi ngs hel d under seal f r om10: 35 t o 10: 48a. m. )
1

( Pr oceedi ngs hel d under seal f r om10: 49 t o 11: 11 A. M. )
2

( Pr oceedi ngs hel d under seal f r om1: 05 p. m. t o 1: 18
p. m. ) .
3

1
The mi nut es on Hoohi ki i ndi cat e t hat t he pr oceedi ng was hel d i n
chamber s, J udge Ahn and counsel had a di scussi on r e: j ur y, and t he
t r anscr i pt f r omt he pr oceedi ng was seal ed by t he ci r cui t cour t .

2
The mi nut es on Hoohi ki i ndi cat e t hat t he pr oceedi ng was hel d i n
t he cour t r oom, J udge Ahn and counsel had a di scussi on r e: j ur y, and t he
t r anscr i pt f r omt he pr oceedi ng was seal ed by t he ci r cui t cour t .

3
The cour t s mi nut es on Hoohi ki i ndi cat e t hat t he pr oceedi ng was
hel d vi a t el ephone conf er ence i n chamber s, J udge Ahn and counsel had a
di scussi on r e: j ur y, and t he t r anscr i pt f r omt he pr oceedi ng was seal ed by
t he ci r cui t cour t .

- 5 -

The par t i al t r anscr i pt does not pr ovi de any cont ext or
backgr ound f or t hese t hr ee pr oceedi ngs, but some backgr ound
i nf or mat i on appear s r egar di ng t he f our t h and f i f t h cour t
sessi ons.
The f our t h pr oceedi ng occur r ed at t he bench i n t he
af t er noon of August 26, 2013. J udge Ahn cal l ed t he case i n open
cour t and i nf or med t he par t i es t hat t he j ur y coul d not r each a
ver di ct , and t he j ur y di d not bel i eve f ur t her del i ber at i ons
woul d be hel pf ul .
[ Ci r cui t cour t ] : Good af t er noon t o al l of you. We ve
r ecei ved a communi cat i on, No. 5, f r omt he j ur y, and as a
mat t er of r ecor d, t he - - al l ot her communi cat i ons wer e
answer ed wi t h t he consent of bot h counsel , and t hat
communi cat i on r eads:

We have unani mousl y vot ed t hat t he j ur y does not have a
ver di ct , and t hat f ur t her del i ber at i ons wi l l not r esol ve
our i mpasse.

I pr opose t o br i ng t he j ur y out , quest i on t hemabout t hi s
br i ef l y. Anyt hi ng mor e f or t he r ecor d?

[ Def ense counsel ] : Yes, Your Honor . We d l i ke t o be hear d
on t hi s mat t er , pl ease.

[ Ci r cui t cour t ] : Yes.

[ St at e] : Your Honor , i f Mr . Har t i nt ends t o put on t he
r ecor d t hi ngs t hat we have di scussed whi ch have been
seal ed, we woul d r equest t hat t hose same ar gument s al so be
seal ed.

[ Def ense counsel ] : Wel l , what I i nt end t o put on t he
r ecor d, and her eby do, i s Mr . Deedy s obj ect i on t o t aki ng a
ver di ct of hopel essl y deadl ocked at t hi s poi nt , and t he
r eason i s t hat t he i ssues t hat came up t hi s mor ni ng, bot h
i n our meet i ng her e i n cour t and on our t el ephone
conf er ence on t he r ecor d at 1: 00, suggest t hat t her e i s
mor e t hat t he Cour t can do.

Af t er def ense counsel obj ect ed t o J udge Ahn s pr oposal t o pol l
t he j ur y about t hei r i mpasse and t he cour t s i nt ent i on t o

- 6 -

decl ar e t he j ur y deadl ocked, J udge Ahn conduct ed a bench
conf er ence wi t h counsel .
[ Ci r cui t cour t ] : Al l r i ght . Mr . Har t , why don t you f ol ks
appr oach.

[ Def ense counsel ] : Al l r i ght .

The bench conf er ence i s r ef er enced i n t he Par t i al Tr anscr i pt
wi t h t he not at i on ( Pr oceedi ngs hel d under seal . ) .
At t he concl usi on of t he bench conf er ence, J udge Ahn
cl ear ed t he cour t r oom, r esul t i ng i n a f i f t h cour t pr oceedi ng
t hat was not open t o t he publ i c:
Ladi es and gent l emen, t hank you f or your pat i ence. At t hi s
t i me, I mgoi ng t o ask ever yone t o l eave t hi s cour t r oom,
i ncl udi ng t he el ect r oni c devi ces. You can wai t r i ght
out si de. Thi s i s not goi ng t o t ake al l af t er noon, I hope.
Al l r i ght ? I ncl udi ng t he l aval i er s, et cet er a.

The Pet i t i oner s wer e pr esent i n t he cour t r oomat t he t i me i t was
cl ear ed but di d not obj ect t o t he cl osur e. Af t er t he cour t r oom
was cl ear ed, t he par t i al t r anscr i pt r ef l ect s t he not at i on
( Pr oceedi ngs hel d under seal . ) .
Lat er t hat af t er noon, J udge Ahn r eopened t he
cour t r oom, br ought i n t he j ur y, pol l ed t he j ur or s r egar di ng
t hei r communi cat i on t hat addi t i onal t i me woul d not per mi t t hem
t o r each a unani mous ver di ct , and decl ar ed a mi st r i al .
Except f or t he desi gnat i on i n t he par t i al t r anscr i pt
and i n t he mi nut es t hat t he pr oceedi ngs wer e seal ed, t he r ecor d
does not cont ai n an or al or wr i t t en or der of t he cour t seal i ng
t he t r anscr i pt of t he f i ve pr oceedi ngs. The r ecor d al so does

- 7 -

not i ndi cat e an obj ect i on by Deedy t o t he cour t r oomnot bei ng
open t o t he publ i c or t he seal i ng of t he t r anscr i pt of t hese
cour t pr oceedi ngs.
B. The Petition
On Sept ember 6, 2013, t he Pet i t i oner s f i l ed t he
Pet i t i on f or Wr i t of Pr ohi bi t i on and Wr i t of Mandamus
( Pet i t i on) . The Pet i t i oner s cont ended t hat each of t he non-
publ i c pr oceedi ngs on August 26, 2013 and t he par t i al seal i ng of
t he August 26, 2013 t r anscr i pt vi ol at ed t hei r Fi r st Amendment
r i ght s, and t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o i mmedi at e and cont empor aneous
access t o t he seal ed document s t o ser ve [ t hei r ] f unct i on as a
cour t r oommoni t or f or t he publ i c. The Pet i t i oner s asked t hi s
cour t t o i ssue a wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on ( 1) pr ohi bi t i ng J udge Ahn
f r omenf or ci ng a pur por t ed or der seal i ng any por t i on of t he
August 26, 2013 t r i al t r anscr i pt , and ( 2) or der i ng t he seal ed
por t i on of t he August 26, 2013 t r anscr i pt t o be unseal ed. The
Pet i t i oner s al so asked t hi s cour t t o i ssue a wr i t of mandamus
or der i ng J udge Ahn t o r ef r ai n f r omcl osi ng t he cour t r oomand
seal i ng document s i n Deedy s r e- t r i al , or i n f ut ur e cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs, wi t hout f i r st pr ovi di ng not i ce, an oppor t uni t y t o
be hear d, and speci f i c f act ual f i ndi ngs i ndi cat i ng t he r eason
f or pr event i ng publ i c access t o t he pr oceedi ngs.
On Sept ember 20, 2013, t hi s cour t di r ect ed J udge Ahn,
t he St at e, and Deedy t o answer t he Pet i t i on.

- 8 -

J udge Ahn r esponded i n her submi ssi on t o t hi s cour t
t hat r el i ef by ext r aor di nar y wr i t was not appr opr i at e. Fi r st ,
J udge Ahn not ed t hat nei t her t he Honol ul u St ar - Adver t i ser nor
Hawai i News Now obj ect ed t o t he cour t r oomcl osur e at t he t i me of
cl osur e and never moved t o unseal any por t i on of t he August 26,
2013 t r anscr i pt i n ci r cui t cour t . Second, J udge Ahn cont ended
t hat t he l aw does not r equi r e not i ce each t i me a cour t
pr oceedi ng i s cl osed. J udge Ahn f ur t her cont ended t hat
pr oceedi ngs and communi cat i ons bet ween a j udge and j ur y dur i ng
j ur y del i ber at i ons ar e except ed f r omt he pr ess and t he publ i c s
pr esumpt i ve r i ght of access t o cr i mi nal t r i al s. Fi nal l y, J udge
Ahn mai nt ai ned t hat t hi s cour t l acked a f ul l and compl et e r ecor d
of t he event s t hat t r anspi r ed i n t he cour t r oomt o suf f i ci ent l y
addr ess a cl ai mof r i ght of access i n t he Fi r st Amendment
cont ext .
The St at e s answer pr esent ed ar gument s si mi l ar t o
t hose pr esent ed by J udge Ahn. The St at e ar gued t hat t he
Pet i t i on was pr emat ur e si nce r el i ef had not been sought i n t he
ci r cui t cour t . Addi t i onal l y, t he St at e asser t ed t hat j ur y
del i ber at i ons, i ncl udi ng wr i t t en j ur or communi cat i ons, ar e
pr i vat e and conf i dent i al and not subj ect t o publ i c access.
Fi nal l y, t he St at e cont ended t hat t r i al cour t s have di scr et i on
t o pr ot ect t he j udi ci al pr ocess and ensur e t hat t he or der l y

- 9 -

oper at i on of cour t pr oceedi ngs shoul d not be encumber ed i n t he
manner pr oposed i n t he Pet i t i on.
Deedy f i l ed a j oi nder t o t he Pet i t i on.
I n an or der f i l ed Oct ober 16, 2013, t hi s cour t
per mi t t ed an ami cus cur i ae br i ef t o be f i l ed on behal f of Peer
News LLC, dba Ci vi l Beat ; LI N Tel evi si on Cor p. , dba KHON; Hear st
Tel evi si on, I nc. ; Hawai i Publ i c Radi o; St ephens Medi a LLC, dba
Hawai i Tr i bune- Her al d and dba West Hawai i Today; Maui Ti me
Pr oduct i ons, I nc. , dba Maui Ti me Weekl y; Hawai i Repor t er , I nc. ;
Hawai i Pr of essi onal Chapt er , Soci et y of Pr of essi onal
J our nal i st s; Medi a Counci l Hawai i ; and The Repor t er s Commi t t ee
f or Fr eedomof t he Pr ess ( col l ect i vel y, Ami ci ) i n suppor t of t he
Pet i t i on. Ami ci asked t hi s cour t , i n addi t i on t o gr ant i ng t he
r equest ed r el i ef , t o consi der t he br oad cont ext pr esent ed by t he
Pet i t i on and del i neat e speci f i c pr ocedur es t o be f ol l owed bef or e
a t r i al cour t may cl ose pr oceedi ngs i n a cr i mi nal case.
C. Temporary Remand
On J anuar y 2, 2014, t hi s cour t i ssued an or der
t empor ar i l y r emandi ng t he case t o t he ci r cui t cour t ( Or der of
Remand) . The Or der of Remand di r ect ed t hat t he Pet i t i oner s f i l e
a r equest wi t h t he ci r cui t cour t seeki ng access t o t he seal ed
por t i ons of t he t r anscr i pt . The Or der of Remand al so al l owed

- 10 -

f or f i l i ng of memor anda by t he par t i es, and di r ect ed t he ci r cui t
cour t t o hol d a hear i ng and f i l e a wr i t t en r ul i ng.
4

The Pet i t i oner s f i l ed a Mot i on t o Unseal Seal ed
Por t i ons of Tr anscr i pt of August 26, 2013 Pr oceedi ngs ( Mot i on t o
Unseal ) on J anuar y 13, 2014. The St at e f i l ed i t s r esponse t o
t he Mot i on t o Unseal on J anuar y 21, 2014, and t he Pet i t i oner s
t i mel y f i l ed a r epl y. On J anuar y 29, 2014, Deedy f i l ed a
st at ement of no opposi t i on t o t he Mot i on t o Unseal .
On Febr uar y 10, 2014, t he ci r cui t cour t hel d a hear i ng
on t he Mot i on t o Unseal . Dur i ng t he hear i ng, t he par t i es agr eed
t hat Phoeni x Newspaper s, I nc. v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or Di st . of
Ar i zona was t he pr oper t est t o be appl i ed i n det er mi ni ng whet her
t he seal i ng of cour t r ecor ds i s war r ant ed.
5
The St at e r equest ed
t hat , i n t he event t he ci r cui t cour t r el eased t he t r anscr i pt ,
t he j ur or s names be r edact ed because of a chi l l i ng af f ect
( si c) on pi cki ng a new j ur y. The Pet i t i oner s di d not obj ect t o

4
The Or der of Remand al so pr ovi ded t hat t he r ecor d i n t hi s case be
suppl ement ed wi t h t he t r anscr i pt of t he above- or der ed hear i ng and wi t h al l
document s f i l ed i n t he ci r cui t cour t i n associ at i on wi t h t he r emand. The
Pet i t i oner s wer e or der ed t o suppl ement t he r ecor d i n t hi s case wi t h a
t r anscr i pt of t he August 26, 2013 pr oceedi ngs, seal ed or unseal ed as
or der ed by t he ci r cui t cour t . Upon r et ur n of t he case t o t hi s cour t , al l
par t i es wer e pr ovi ded wi t h t he opt i on t o f i l e suppl ement al br i ef s. The Or der
of Remand speci f i ed a t i mel i ne f or each act i on.

5
I n Phoeni x Newspaper s, I nc. v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or Di st . of
Ar i zona, t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o deny medi a access t o a t r anscr i pt
of a cl osed hear i ng was r evi ewed by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s. 156
F. 3d 940, 946- 47 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat t hat a cour t
must compl et e pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve r equi r ement s bef or e cl osi ng a
hear i ng and t hat a t r anscr i pt of t he cl osed hear i ng must be r el eased when t he
compet i ng i nt er est s pr eci pi t at i ng hear i ng cl osur e ar e no l onger vi abl e.


- 11 -

t hat si ngul ar r equest , but ent er ed a bl anket obj ect i on t o t he
del et i on[ ] of anyt hi ng el se wi t hout a f ul l hear i ng, an
oppor t uni t y t o ar gue, and f ul l f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons. The
ci r cui t cour t i ndi cat ed t hat i t had not yet made a deci si on
whet her t o r el ease t he t r anscr i pt , but i t woul d f i l e a wr i t t en
r ul i ng wi t hi n t he 21- day deadl i ne al l owed by t he Or der of
Remand.
On Febr uar y 24, 2014, t he ci r cui t cour t i ssued an
Or der Gr ant i ng i n Par t and Denyi ng i n Par t Mot i on t o Unseal
Seal ed Por t i ons of Tr anscr i pt of August 26, 2013 Pr oceedi ngs
( Par t i al Or der t o Unseal ) .
6
The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal
acknowl edged t hat t he news medi a have a qual i f i ed r i ght of
access t o j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs and r ecor ds. Fur t her , t he or der
not ed t hat [ a] t r anscr i pt of any pr oceedi ngs t hat have been
cl osed . . . may be r el eased when t he danger of pr ej udi ce has
passed and t he f act or s mi l i t at i ng i n f avor of cl osur e no l onger
exi st .
The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal expl ai ned t he ci r cui t
cour t s act i ons, i ndi cat i ng t he ci r cui t cour t s bel i ef t hat
necessar y di scussi ons bet ween t he [ ci r cui t cour t ] and counsel ,
on t he one hand, and del i ber at i ng j ur or s, on t he ot her ,

6
The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal st at ed [ t ] he Cour t t akes j udi ci al
not i ce of t he seal ed por t i ons of t he t r anscr i pt of t he August 26, 2013,
pr oceedi ngs.

- 12 -

t r adi t i onal l y and hi st or i cal l y have been cl osed t o t he
publ i c[ . ]
Dur i ng t hese necessar i l y nar r owl y t ai l or ed di scussi ons, t he
[ ci r cui t cour t ] must avoi d i nt r udi ng upon or i nqui r i ng i nt o
t he j ur y s del i ber at i ons, and must avoi d exposi ng t he
i ndi vi dual j ur or s t o anyt hi ng t hat may i n any way
i mpr oper l y i nf l uence t hei r cont i nui ng deci si on- maki ng
pr ocesses.

The ci r cui t cour t not ed t hat r equi r i ng a j ur or t o answer
quest i ons i n f r ont of f ami l y and f r i ends of t he Def endant , t he
al l eged vi ct i m, and t he news medi a coul d expose a j ur or t o
pr essur e and mat t er s whi ch ar e not par t of t he evi dence t o be
consi der ed, but i t al so coul d hamper t he [ ci r cui t cour t s]
sear ch f or candi d answer s f r omt hat j ur or . The ci r cui t cour t
not ed t hat pr i vacy and secur i t y of t he j ur or s and t he i mpor t ance
of pr eser vi ng an i mpar t i al j ur y t o ensur e a f ai r t r i al on behal f
of bot h a def endant and t he St at e, as t he speci f i c r easons
suppor t i ng t he cl osur e:
For al l of t hese r easons, i n or der t o pr eser ve a j ur or s
pr i vacy and secur i t y and t he i nt egr i t y of a f ai r and
i mpar t i al j ur y deci si on based sol el y upon t he t r i al
evi dence and t he l aw pr ovi ded by t he Cour t , and t o pr ot ect
t he r i ght of bot h par t i es t o a f ai r t r i al and ver di ct ,
publ i c access woul d not pl ay a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e i n
t he f unct i oni ng of t hi s pr ocess.

Ther ef or e, t he ci r cui t cour t concl uded t hat because publ i c
access woul d not pl ay a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e, t he cl osur e
of t he cour t r oomand deni al of publ i c access t o t he t r anscr i pt
of t he cl osed pr oceedi ngs was war r ant ed.

- 13 -

The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal al so r ecogni zed t hat t he
exi gency of t he si t uat i on had passed and t hat seal i ng t he
t r anscr i pt was no l onger r equi r ed.
Now t hat t he i ni t i al j ur y has been di schar ged, a
subst ant i al par t of t he [ ci r cui t cour t s] . . . concer ns no
l onger appl y.

The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal r el eased t he par t i al l y unseal ed
t r anscr i pt , not i ng t hat t he i dent i t i es of t he j ur or s had been
r edact ed.
D. The Unsealed Transcript
7

The unseal ed t r anscr i pt i ndi cat es t hat on August 26,
2013, dur i ng t he f i f t h day of j ur y del i ber at i ons, t he ci r cui t
cour t , i n f i ve separ at e i nst ances, conduct ed cour t pr oceedi ngs
t hat wer e not open t o t he publ i c t o i nvest i gat e pot ent i al j ur or
mi sconduct .
8
The f i r st pr oceedi ng t ook pl ace i n t he j udge s

7
The por t i ons of t he t r anscr i pt t hat wer e unseal ed by t he Par t i al
Or der t o Unseal wer e f i l ed wi t h t hi s cour t on Mar ch 11, 2014, al ong wi t h a
copy of t he Par t i al Or der t o Unseal and t he r el at ed mot i on, r esponse, and
r epl y.

8
J ur or mi sconduct does not necessar i l y mean a j ur or s bad f ai t h
or mal i ci ous mot i ve, but means a vi ol at i on of , or depar t ur e f r om, an
est abl i shed r ul e or pr ocedur e f or pr oduct i on of a val i d ver di ct . Lovi ng v.
Baker s Super mar ket s, I nc. , 238 Neb. 727, 732 ( 1991) . I n Hawai i , j ur or
mi sconduct may i ncl ude bi as, pr ej udi ce, passi on, or mi sunder st andi ng of t he
char ge of t he cour t on t he par t of t he j ur y. HRS 635- 56 ( 1993) .
Thi s cour t has descr i bed j ur or mi sconduct as any act i on r el at ed
t o t he j ur y t hat may r esul t i n a deni al of a def endant s Si xt h Amendment
r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al .

The si xt h amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and
ar t i cl e I , sect i on 14 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on guar ant ee
t he cr i mi nal l y accused a f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y.
I f any j ur or was not i mpar t i al , a new t r i al must be
gr ant ed. However , not al l j ur or mi sconduct necessar i l y
di ct at es t he gr ant i ng of a new t r i al . A new t r i al wi l l not

( cont i nued. . . )

- 14 -

chamber s f r om10: 35 t o 10: 48 a. m. The ci r cui t cour t i nf or med
counsel t hat t he j ur y f or eper son had appr oached her l aw cl er k
wi t h a concer n r egar di ng anot her j ur or . The cour t i nf or med t he
par t i es t hat t he j ur y f or eper son had asked J udge Ahn s l aw
cl er k, What do we do i f we f eel one of t he j ur or s i s a f r i end
of one of t he si des? The ci r cui t cour t and t he par t i es
di scussed how t o r espond t o t he f or eper son s quer y.
9
The cour t
i ndi cat ed t hat i t woul d br i ng t he f or eper son i nt o t he cour t r oom
t o
ask [ t he f or eper son] whet her he sai d somet hi ng t o [ t he l aw
cl er k] t hi s mor ni ng and ask hi mwhat i t was t hat he asked,
l et hi mt el l us what hi s quest i on was, t hen I mgoi ng t o - -
I mgoi ng t o t el l hi mI cannot - - I don t want t o know
about your del i ber at i on pr ocess or wher e - - what t he j ur y
i s t hi nki ng about now, or has been t hi nki ng about , but can
you t el l me what you meant .
10

( Foot not e added) . The cour t al so i ndi cat ed t hat i t woul d
i nst r uct t he f or eper son not t o di scuss t he quest i oni ng wi t h hi s
f el l ow j ur or s.

8
( . . . cont i nued)
be gr ant ed i f i t can be shown t hat t he j ur y coul d not have been
i nf l uenced by t he al l eged mi sconduct . St at e v. Ki m, 103 Hawai i 285,
290- 91, 81 P. 3d 1200, 1205- 06 ( 2003) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons
r emoved) .

9
The par t i al l y- r edact ed unseal ed t r anscr i pt does not r ef er t o t he
f or eper son by name but does r ef er t o t he f or eper son usi ng mal e pr onouns.

10
The cour t deci ded agai nst quest i oni ng t he f or eper son i n chamber s
because t he cl ose pr oxi mi t y of t he j ur or t o t he Def endant coul d be
i nt i mi dat i ng, but had ear l i er i ndi cat ed t hat i t di d not have a pr ef er ence
whet her t he quest i oni ng t ook pl ace i n cour t or i n chamber s. J udge Ahn st at ed
I don t car e, i f you bot h agr ee t hat t hi s [ i . e. t he cour t r oom] may be a
bet t er set t i ng, t hat s f i ne wi t h me.


- 15 -

The ci r cui t cour t had pr epar ed t he cour t r oomf or
cl osur e: We ve al r eady ki nd of put paper over t he mai n door s i n
t he cour t r oomand t he cour t r oomi s l ocked, and I ve cont act ed
publ i c r el at i ons wi t h t he j udi ci ar y and I t hi nk she s goi ng t o
t el l t he medi a t hat t hey can pet i t i on f or a wr i t .
11
The cour t
i ndi cat ed i t s awar eness t hat t he cl osur e was adver se t o t he
i nt er est s of t he news medi a, st at i ng t hey know t hat t hey can
t hey r e- - you know, t hei r r el i ef i s t hr ough a pet i t i on.
Thi s cl osed pr oceedi ng t ook pl ace i n t he cour t r oom
f r om10: 49 t o 11: 11 a. m. Dur i ng t hi s sessi on, t he ci r cui t
cour t , t he St at e, and def ense counsel quest i oned t he f or eper son.
The f or eper son i ndi cat ed t hat he was not sur e how t o br i ng hi s
concer n t o t he cour t s at t ent i on.
I j ust - - I want ed t o know i f - l i ke i f we - - l i ke i f - -
say i f I t hi nk somebody mi ght be, l i ke, a f r i end of a
f r i end of t he - - one of t he si des, i f , you know, l i ke what
amI - - amI supposed t o say somet hi ng? AmI supposed t o
br i ng i t up i n t her e?

The cour t t hen asked why t he f or eper son had asked t hat quest i on.
The f or eper son r el at ed t hat :
when we wer e - - you know, we al ways l i ne up i n t he
hal l ways, so one day I seen somebody shake somebody s hand
l i ke t hey - - t hey knew t hem, you know, l i ke, hey, how s i t ,
bl ah- bl ah- bl ah. And t hen - - and t hen I not i ced i n t he
cour t r oomt hat t hey wer e si t t i ng on one si de. And t hen
when I went t o l unch . . . . and I not i ced t hat day t hat
t hat i ndi vi dual was si t t i ng wi t h t hat - - wi t h t he f ami l y,
t he per son t hat shook t he hand of t he j ur or was - - was
eat i ng l unch wi t h t he f ami l y.

11
The r ecor d does not i ndi cat e whet her any medi a or gani zat i ons wer e
i nf or med of t he cl osur e by j udi ci ar y publ i c r el at i ons per sonnel .

- 16 -

The cour t t hen al l owed counsel t o quest i on t he
f or eper son. Def ense counsel at t empt ed t o ask whet her t he
f or eper son had any sense about whet her t he j ur or di scl osed any
of t hese knowl edges ( si c) of t he f ami l y or f r i ends of t he
f ami l y? The quest i on was obj ect ed t o by t he St at e.
The cour t di d not r ul e on t he obj ect i on, but i n
r esponse t o t he St at e s obj ect i on, t he f or eper son appear s t o
have vol unt eer ed t hat he t ook t he per son wi t h whomt he j ur or
shook hands t o be a f r i end of a f r i end.
That s how I t ook i t . I mean, i t - - you know what I mean,
I - - I di dn t - - you know, I di dn t see hi mshake hands
wi t h any of t he f ami l y of ei t her si de or - - you know what I
mean, i t was a - - you know, I j ust not i ced t hat he shook
hands wi t h one per son, and i t l ooked l i ke t hat per son was
f r i ends of a f ami l y.

The f or eper son was excused wi t h i nst r uct i ons not t o di scuss what
had j ust occur r ed wi t h any ot her j ur or . Af t er counsel debat ed
t he i mpor t of t he f or eper son s obser vat i on, t he f or eper son was
br ought back i nt o t he cour t r oomand asked t o i dent i f y t he j ur or
t hat shook hands wi t h t he t hi r d par t y.
The i dent i f i ed j ur or was t hen br ought t o t he cour t r oom
and was asked by J udge Ahn, [ D] o you t hi nk you can be f ai r t o
bot h si des? The j ur or answer ed Yes, and J udge Ahn conf i r med
So you can be f ai r t o bot h t he gover nment and t he def ense?
The j ur or agai n answer ed af f i r mat i vel y. No ot her quest i ons wer e
asked. Af t er t he j ur or had exi t ed, def ense counsel i ndi cat ed

- 17 -

t hat t he quest i oni ng of t he j ur or was i nsuf f i ci ent . The ci r cui t
cour t r ej ect ed def ense counsel s concer ns.
Dur i ng t he t hi r d pr oceedi ng, f r om1: 05 t o 1: 18 p. m. ,
t he ci r cui t cour t , def ense counsel and t he St at e hel d a
conf er ence i n J udge Ahn s chamber s r egar di ng t he j ur or s
handshake. Def ense counsel asked t he cour t t o f ur t her quest i on
t he j ur or because of concer ns t hat t he j ur y woul d be deadl ocked
11- 1. [ I ] f t her e, i n f act , i s goi ng t o be a deadl ock, t he
[ ci r cui t cour t ] wi l l have t o det er mi ne whet her t her e i s mani f est
necessi t y f or t he di smi ssal of t he j ur or because t hey r e unabl e
t o r each a ver di ct . Def ense counsel suggest ed t hat t he ci r cui t
cour t needed t o get f ur t her answer s.
[ W] e don t know enough about [ t he j ur or ] t o have a
conf i dent answer t o t he quest i on about whet her or not [ t he
j ur or ] had some undi scl osed cont act wi t h peopl e cl ose t o
one si de or t he ot her t hat t he Cour t shoul d ve known about ,
much t he way i t i nqui r ed of when he pr ompt l y and
r esponsi bl y r ai sed hi s concer n dur i ng t he t r i al .

The St at e suggest ed t hat t he handshake was l i kel y i nnocuous.
Def ense counsel r epl i ed t hat
shaki ng t he hand of a j ur or whi l e t he j ur or s wai t i ng i n
l i ne i s not somet hi ng we see ever y day, and f ur t her i nqui r y
t o make sur e t hat we have t r ul y a f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur or ,
par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he t i mi ng t hat t he j ur or s
r epor t ed t hei r deadl ock . . . suggest s t he basi s f or t he
[ ci r cui t cour t ] t o i nqui r e f ur t her . I t may t ur n out t o be
compl et el y i nnocuous, i n whi ch case t he r ecor d wi l l r ef l ect
t hat , or i t may t ur n out t o be mor e[ . ]

At t he end of t hi s sessi on i n chamber s, t he cour t di d not
i ndi cat e t hat i t woul d t ake any speci f i c act i on.

- 18 -

Dur i ng t he f our t h pr oceedi ng, counsel and t he ci r cui t
cour t had a br i ef meet i ng at t he bench. Def ense counsel agai n
ur ged t he cour t t o make a f ur t her i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he
ci r cumst ances of t he handshake. Def ense counsel al so suggest ed
t hat i f t he i ssue was not r esol ved and t he j ur or was pr oved not
t o be f ai r and i mpar t i al , i t woul d pr esent pot ent i al doubl e
j eopar dy pr obl ems of t he f i r st or der . The St at e agr eed, aski ng
t he cour t t o f ur t her quest i on t he j ur or . Counsel t hen debat ed
t he scope of t he addi t i onal quest i oni ng of t he j ur or , and t he
cour t deci ded t o cl ear t he cour t r oom.
I n t hi s f i f t h pr oceedi ng, t he ci r cui t cour t cl osed t he
cour t r oomand f ur t her quest i oned t he j ur or t hat shook hands wi t h
t he t hi r d par t y. The cour t asked t he j ur or i f he r emember ed
shaki ng hands wi t h anyone whi l e l i ned up wi t h t he j ur y, and t he
j ur or i ndi cat ed t hat he di d. The j ur or st at ed t hat t he per son
wi t h whomhe shook hands was j ust one guy I used t o wor k wi t h
. . . . I t hi nk l i ke al most seven year s ago. The j ur or
i ndi cat ed t hat t he handshake di d not do anyt hi ng t o af f ect t he
case or my j udgment . The j ur or was not di r ect l y asked i f t he
per son wi t h whomhe shook hands was i dent i f i ed wi t h t he vi ct i m
or t he vi ct i m s f ami l y, but t he j ur or was asked a quest i on t hat
seemed t o i mpl y a r el at i onshi p bet ween t he per son wi t h whomhe
shook hands and wi t h somebody i n t he case. The quest i on was
phr ased as f ol l ows:

- 19 -

[ Ci r cui t cour t ] Okay. And have you had any - - I j ust want
t o ask t hi s as a gener al quest i on. Have you had any ot her
cont act s or - - t hat - - wi t h anyone who may be - - you t hi nk
may be associ at ed wi t h anybody i n t hi s case or any f r i ends
or what ever have you?

[ J ur or ] No, t hat was pr et t y much t he onl y per son t hat I ve
seen, cause t hen f r omwhen I l eave cour t her e, I usual l y
go st r ai ght t o my [ r edact ed] s house and t hen ei t her pi ck
[ r edact ed] up f r omwor k or go st r ai ght home.

[ Ci r cui t cour t ] Okay.

[ J ur or ] So t hat was pr et t y much t he onl y t i me, besi des i f
we go out eat or somet hi ng, but besi des me act ual l y t al ki ng
t o anybody or somet hi ng, t hat was t he onl y per son.

[ Ci r cui t cour t ] Okay. And af t er t hat one i nci dent , di d
you - - di d you see t hi s [ r edact ed] agai n?

[ J ur or ] I t hi nk he was her e one ot her t i me, but I never
t al ked t o hi m.

The j ur or was t hen excused t o r et ur n t o t he j ur y. The St at e
not ed t hat i t was sat i sf i ed t hat under t he Fur ut ani st andar d,
t he j ur or s conduct di d not r i se t o t he l evel of subst ant i al
pr ej udi ce.
12
Def ense counsel di sagr eed and t ook t he posi t i on
t hat mor e sear chi ng and f ur t her quest i oni ng shoul d have been
pur sued and bot h si des shoul d have had an oppor t uni t y t o
quest i on [ r edact ed] i n a voi r di r e manner . The r ecor d of t he
f i ve pr oceedi ngs was t hen seal ed.
The unseal ed t r anscr i pt does not i ndi cat e any
obj ect i on by Deedy t o t he f i ve cour t pr oceedi ngs not bei ng open

12
I n St at e v. Fur ut ani , t hi s cour t hel d t hat a def endant bear s t he
i ni t i al bur den of maki ng a pr i ma f aci e showi ng of a depr i vat i on of t he r i ght
t o a f ai r t r i al t hat coul d subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ce t he def endant , but once a
r ebut t abl e pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce has been r ai sed, t he bur den of pr ovi ng
har ml essness i s upon t he pr osecut i on. 76 Hawai i 172, 181, 873 P. 2d 51, 60
( 1994) .

- 20 -

t o t he publ i c or t he seal i ng of t he t r anscr i pt of t he
pr oceedi ngs.
E. Supplemental Briefing
The r espondent par t i es di d not f i l e a suppl ement al
br i ef .
The Pet i t i oner s t i mel y f i l ed a Suppl ement al Br i ef I n
Suppor t of Pet i t i on f or Wr i t of Pr ohi bi t i on and Wr i t of Mandamus
on Mar ch 31, 2014. I n t he Suppl ement al Br i ef , t he Pet i t i oner s
ar gue t hat despi t e t he f act t he ci r cui t cour t unseal ed t he
t r anscr i pt , compel l i ng r easons st i l l exi st f or gr ant i ng t he
Pet i t i on. The Pet i t i oner s asser t t hat t he unseal ed August 26,
2013 t r anscr i pt r eveal s t hat t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat any
par t of t he pr oceedi ng . . . shoul d have been per f or med i n
camer a or t hat t he t r anscr i pt ever shoul d have been seal ed.
The Pet i t i oner s cont end t hat a seal i ng or der may onl y be
ent er ed upon a showi ng of ext r aor di nar y need and, f ur t her mor e,
must be nar r owl y t ai l or ed . . . . The Pet i t i oner s st at e t hat
i n t he pr esent case, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on of any need, l et
al one ext r aor di nar y need, f or cl osi ng t he pr oceedi ngs and
seal i ng t he t r anscr i pt s. The Pet i t i oner s asser t t hat :
t he i ssue at quest i onwhet her a si ngl e j ur or had passi ng
cont act wi t h a t hi r d par t y member of t he publ i c who was
never conf i r med t o be connect ed t o any wi t ness or par t y
pr oved t o be a t r i vi al one t hat [ t he ci r cui t cour t ]
appar ent l y concl uded woul d not subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ce t he
j ur y del i ber at i ons.


- 21 -

Ther ef or e, t he Pet i t i oner s concl ude t hat t her e was no
ext r aor di nar y need t o seal t he t r anscr i pt of t hose pr oceedi ngs.
The Pet i t i oner s cont end t hat t he ci r cui t cour t was r equi r ed but
f ai l ed t o consi der al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e of t he cour t r oomand
seal i ng t he t r anscr i pt such as r edact i ng j ur or s names and ot her
i dent i f yi ng f eat ur es, whi ch t he Pet i t i oner s not e t hat t he cour t
ul t i mat el y di d. Last l y, t he Pet i t i oner s mai nt ai n t hat any
l egi t i mat e r eason t o cl ose t he cour t r oomand seal t he t r anscr i pt
vani shed as soon as t he Deedy t r i al concl uded and t he j ur or s
dut y ended.
The Pet i t i oner s addi t i onal l y cont end t hat t he r el ease
of t he t r anscr i pt by t he ci r cui t cour t di d not r ect i f y t he
under l yi ng har mt o t he Pet i t i oner s. The Pet i t i oner s i dent i f y
t he har ms as: t he f ai l ur e of [ t he ci r cui t cour t ] t o pr ovi de t he
Pet i t i oner s wi t h not i ce, an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d, and a
det ai l ed expl anat i on of t he necessi t y of cl osi ng t he cour t r oom
bef or e conduct i ng f i ve cl osed pr oceedi ngs and seal i ng t he
r el at ed por t i ons of t he t r anscr i pt . The Pet i t i oner s concl ude
t hat [ t ] hose har ms cannot be r emedi ed by t ar dy r el ease of t he
t r anscr i pt , and t hi s Cour t can and shoul d exer ci se i t s mandamus
and pr ohi bi t or y power s t o or der [ t he ci r cui t cour t ] t o r ef r ai n
f r omf ut ur e Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i ons.

- 22 -

II. Discussion
Our anal ysi s begi ns wi t h t he r ul i ngs of t he Uni t ed
St at es Supr eme Cour t t hat ar t i cul at e a qual i f i ed publ i c r i ght of
access t o t r i al pr oceedi ngs under t he Fi r st Amendment . Second,
we l ook t o Hawai i l aw t o det er mi ne t he ext ent t o whi ch our
Const i t ut i on and hi st or y pr onounce si mi l ar r i ght s of publ i c
access t o cour t r ooms. Thi r d, we exami ne t he mi ni mumpr ocedur es
t hat must be obser ved i n or der t o pr ot ect t he publ i c s qual i f i ed
r i ght of access. We t hen t ur n t o t he t wo concer ns pr eci pi t at ed
i n t he cur r ent case: whet her a publ i c r i ght of access appl i es t o
mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s r egar di ng al l egat i ons of
mi sconduct , and under what ci r cumst ances t he publ i c has a r i ght
of access t o a t r anscr i pt of a cl osed pr oceedi ng. As we addr ess
each concer n, we appl y t he pr i nci pl es el uci dat ed t o pr ot ect t he
r i ght of access of t he publ i c t o t he pr oceedi ngs t hat t ook pl ace
on August 26, 2013.
13

13
Al t hough we ul t i mat el y di smi ss t he wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on and deny
t he wr i t of mandamus, t hi s cour t has r ecogni zed an except i on t o moot ness i n
cases i nvol vi ng quest i ons t hat af f ect t he publ i c i nt er est and ar e capabl e of
r epet i t i on but evade r evi ew. Okada Tr ucki ng Co. , Lt d. v. Bd. of Wat er
Suppl y, 99 Hawai i 191, 196, 53 P. 3d 799, 804 ( 2002) . Among t he cr i t er i a
consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng t he exi st ence of t he r equi si t e degr ee of publ i c
i nt er est ar e t he publ i c or pr i vat e nat ur e of t he quest i on pr esent ed, t he
desi r abi l i t y of an aut hor i t at i ve det er mi nat i on f or t he f ut ur e gui dance of
publ i c of f i cer s, and t he l i kel i hood of f ut ur e r ecur r ence of t he quest i on.
I d. at 196- 97, 53 P. 3d at 804- 05. The phr ase capabl e of r epet i t i on, yet
evadi ng r evi ew means t hat a case wi l l not be moot wher e . . . t he passage
of t i me woul d pr event any si ngl e pl ai nt i f f f r omr emai ni ng subj ect t o t he
r est r i ct i on compl ai ned of f or t he per i od necessar y t o compl et e t he l awsui t .
I d. ; see Ri chmond Newspaper s, I nc. v. Vi r gi ni a, 448 U. S. 555, 563 ( 1980)
( hol di ng t hat , mor e of t en t han not cr i mi nal t r i al s wi l l be of suf f i ci ent l y
shor t dur at i on t hat a cl osur e or der wi l l evade r evi ew) . Her e, t he l i kel y

- 23 -

A.
Congr ess shal l make no l aw . . . abr i dgi ng t he
f r eedomof speech, or of t he pr ess . . . . U. S. Const . amend
I . The r i ght t o at t end cr i mi nal t r i al s i s i mpl i ci t i n t he
guar ant ees of t he f i r st amendment .
14
Ri chmond Newspaper s, I nc.
v. Vi r gi ni a, 448 U. S. 555, 580 ( 1980) . Of cour se, t hi s r i ght
of access t o cr i mi nal t r i al s i s not expl i ci t l y ment i oned . . .
i n t he Fi r st Amendment . Gl obe Newspaper Co. v. Super i or Cour t
f or Nor f ol k Cnt y. , 457 U. S. 596, 604 ( 1982) . However , t he Fi r st
Amendment i s br oad enough t o encompass t hose r i ght s t hat , whi l e
not unambi guousl y enumer at ed i n t he ver y t er ms of t he Amendment ,
ar e nonet hel ess necessar y t o t he enj oyment of ot her Fi r st
Amendment r i ght s. I d.
The Supr eme Cour t has not ed t hat t hi s qual i f i ed r i ght
of access i s based upon t he t wo compl ement ar y consi der at i ons
of l ogi c and exper i ence. Pr ess- Ent er . Co. v. Super i or Cour t

13
evasi on of f ul l r evi ew and t he publ i c i nt er est cr i t er i a of t he publ i c nat ur e
of t he i ssue, t he l i kel i hood of r ecur r ence, and t he desi r abi l i t y of an
aut hor i t at i ve det er mi nat i on ar e demonst r abl y evi dent . Ther ef or e, t he i nst ant
case f al l s wi t hi n t he except i on t o t he moot ness doct r i ne and we addr ess t he
mer i t s of t he Pet i t i oner s ar gument s.

14
[ M] any of t he advant ages of publ i c cr i mi nal t r i al s ar e equal l y
appl i cabl e i n t he ci vi l t r i al cont ext . Gannet t Co. , I nc. v. DePasqual e, 443
U. S. 368, 387 n. 15 ( 1979) . For many cent ur i es, bot h ci vi l and cr i mi nal
t r i al s have t r adi t i onal l y been open t o t he publ i c . . . . Whi l e t he oper at i on
of t he j udi ci al pr ocess i n ci vi l cases i s of t en of i nt er est onl y t o t he
par t i es i n t he l i t i gat i on, t hi s i s not al ways t he case. . . . Thus, i n some
ci vi l cases t he publ i c i nt er est i n access, and t he sal ut ar y ef f ect of
publ i ci t y, may be as st r ong as, or st r onger t han, i n most cr i mi nal cases.
I d.

- 24 -

of Cal . f or Ri ver si de Cnt y. , 478 U. S. 1, 8 ( 1986) ( Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I I ) ; Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 457 U. S. at 606. Under t he
exper i ence consi der at i on, a r i ght of t he publ i c t o at t end
t r i al s r el i es on whet her t he pl ace and pr ocess have
hi st or i cal l y been open t o t he pr ess and gener al publ i c because
a t r adi t i on of accessi bi l i t y i mpl i es t he f avor abl e j udgment of
exper i ence[ . ] Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 8 ( quot i ng
Ri chmond Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 589 ( Br ennan, J . , concur r i ng) .
Under t he l ogi c consi der at i on, t he r i ght of t he publ i c t o
at t end a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng r el i es on whet her publ i c access
pl ays a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e i n t he f unct i oni ng of t he
par t i cul ar pr ocess i n quest i on. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S.
at 8.
The val ue of openness l i es i n t he f act t hat peopl e not
act ual l y at t endi ng t r i al s can have conf i dence t hat
st andar ds of f ai r ness ar e bei ng obser ved; t he sur e
knowl edge t hat anyone i s f r ee t o at t end gi ves assur ance
t hat est abl i shed pr ocedur es ar e bei ng f ol l owed and t hat
devi at i ons wi l l become known.

Pr ess- Ent er . Co. v. Super i or Cour t of Cal . , Ri ver si de Cnt y. , 464
U. S. 501, 508 ( 1984) ( Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I ) , ( ci t i ng Ri chmond
Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 569- 71) . I f a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng
f ul f i l l s t he l ogi c and exper i ence consi der at i ons, a qual i f i ed
Fi r st Amendment r i ght of access at t aches t o t hat pr oceedi ng.
The qual i f i ed Fi r st Amendment r i ght of access has been
hel d by t he Supr eme Cour t t o at t ach t o cr i mi nal t r i al s dur i ng
t he evi dence and t est i mony- t aki ng phase, Ri chmond Newspaper s,

- 25 -

448 U. S. at 580; cr i mi nal t r i al s i nvol vi ng mi nor vi ct i ms, Gl obe
Newspaper Co. , 457 U. S. at 606; voi r di r e of pot ent i al j ur or s,
Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. 501, 505 ( 1984) ; and t he ext ensi ve
pr el i mi nar y hear i ngs of t he t ype ut i l i zed i n Cal i f or ni a. Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 10.
B.
Si mi l ar t o t he f eder al const i t ut i on, t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on pr ovi des t hat [ n] o l aw shal l be enact ed . . .
abr i dgi ng t he f r eedomof speech or of t he pr ess[ . ] Haw. Const .
ar t . I , 4. I n i nt er pr et i ng and appl yi ng ar t i cl e I , sect i on 4
of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on, t hi s cour t consi der s t he case l aw
est abl i shed under t he [ F] i r st [ A] mendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es
Const i t ut i on. I n r e Haw. Gov t Empl oyees Ass n, AFSCME, Local
152, AFL- CI O, 116 Hawai i 73, 84, 170 P. 3d 324, 335 ( 2007) .
Ef f ect i vel y, t he l anguage of f eder al and Hawai i const i t ut i onal
f r ee speech pr ovi si ons i s i dent i cal but t hi s cour t may f i nd
t hat t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on af f or ds gr eat er f r ee speech
pr ot ect i on t han i t s f eder al count er par t . Cr osby v. St at e Dep t
of Budget & Fi n. , 76 Hawai i 332, 340 n. 9, 876 P. 2d 1300 n. 9
( 1994) , St at e v. Rodr i gues, 128 Hawai i 200, 203 n. 8, 286 P. 3d
809, 812 n. 8 ( 2012) . Ther ef or e, ar t i cl e I , sect i on 4 of t he
Hawai i Const i t ut i on encompasses at l east as much pr ot ect i on of
t he r i ght of t he publ i c t o access cr i mi nal t r i al s as has been

- 26 -

f ound by t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t i n t he Fi r st Amendment
t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.
Hawai i s cour t s have a l ong t r adi t i on of accessi bi l i t y
by t he publ i c; t he l egal f r amewor k ut i l i zed by t he al i i
t r ansi t i oned f r omt he kapu syst emt o t he use of publ i c t r i al s by
j ur y dur i ng t he 1820s.
15
Sal l y Engl e Mer r y, Col oni zi ng Hawai i :
The Cul t ur al Power of Law 70 ( 2000) . Queen Li l i uokal ani
r epor t ed t hat dur i ng her t r i al by a mi l i t ar y t r i bunal i n
Febr uar y 1895 t he cour t r oomwas cr owded wi t h cur i ous
spect at or s. Li l i uokal ani , Hawai i s St or y by Hawai i s Queen
279 ( 1990) . The Queen s t r i al was open and wel l at t ended, and
was cover ed i n t he dai l y pr ess. J on M. Van Dyke & Paul a
Hender son, The Tr i al of Li l i uokal ani , i n Tr i al of a Queen: 1895
Mi l i t ar y Tr i bunal ( Hawai i St at e J udi ci ar y 1996) .
16
Si mi l ar l y,
t he Massi e case, a 1932 hi gh pr of i l e mur der case t hat made
headl i nes acr oss t he count r y was at t ended by a " st andi ng- r oom-
onl y cr owd of spect at or s. Davi d St annar d, The Massi e case:
I nj ust i ce and Cour age, The Honol ul u Adver t i ser . com( Oct . 14,

15
The kapu syst emwas an unwr i t t en t r adi t i onal code consi st i ng of
r egul at i ons pr omul gat ed by f or mer ki ngs or f ol l owed by gener al consent t hat
r egul at ed r el at i ons bet ween [ t he commoner s] and t he al i i . Sal l y Engl e
Mer r y, Col oni zi ng Hawai i : The Cul t ur al Power of Law 55 ( 2000) . Al i i means
a chi ef , chi ef ess, r ul er , monar ch, or ki ng. Mar y Kawena Pukui & Samuel H.
El ber t , Hawai i an Di ct i onar y 20 ( 1986) . Kapu means a t aboo or pr ohi bi t i on.
I d. at 132.

16
Queen Li l i uokal ani s t r i al i s r ef l ect i ve of a t r adi t i on of publ i c
pr oceedi ngs even t hough as a mi l i t ar y t r i bunal , i t i s not a par t of t he
t r adi t i on of t hi s cour t .

- 27 -

2001) , ht t p: / / t he. honol ul uadver t i ser . com/ ar t i cl e/ 2001/ Oct / 14/
op/ op03a. ht ml ( l ast vi si t ed May 1, 2014) .
Thi s cour t has r ecogni zed a t r adi t i on of publ i c
access, decl ar i ng i t f i r ml y embedded i n our syst emof
j ur i spr udence as a gener al pol i cy of open t r i al s. Gannet t
Pac. Cor p. v. Ri char dson, 59 Haw. 224, 228, 580 P. 2d 49, 54
( 1978) . Open cour t s ar e a f undament al component of our syst em
of l aw: [ c] our t s ar e est abl i shed f or t he j udi ci al
admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. They ar e open t o t he publ i c . . . .
The f act t hat t hey ar e open ser ves as a saf eguar d of t he
i nt egr i t y of our cour t s. St at e v. Hashi mot o, 47 Haw. 185, 200,
389 P. 2d 146, 155 ( 1963) . The cor r ect i ve i nf l uence of publ i c
at t endance at t r i al s f or cr i me [ i ] s . . . i mpor t ant t o t he
l i ber t y of t he peopl e. Ter r i t or y v. Schar sch, 25 Haw. 429, 436
( 1920) . The wor ds publ i c t r i al ar e sel f - expl anat or y.
Hashi mot o, 47 Haw. at 200, 389 P. 2d at 155. [ A] publ i c t r i al
i s a t r i al at whi ch t he publ i c i s f r ee t o at t end. Schar sch, 25
Haw. at 436.
I n Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , we addr essed a pet i t i on by a
l ocal newspaper t o pr event t he cl osur e of a pr el i mi nar y hear i ng
i n a cr i mi nal t r i al upon a mot i on by t he def endant . The t r i al
cour t had gr ant ed t he def endant s mot i on t o cl ose t he
pr el i mi nar y hear i ng due t o concer ns r egar di ng t he def endant s
Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . I d. at 236, 580 P. 2d at

- 28 -

52. Thi s cour t pr ohi bi t ed t he t r i al cour t f r omcl osi ng t he
hear i ng. I d. at 226, 580 P. 2d at 52.
Gannet t Pac. Cor p. expl i ci t l y r ecogni zed a qual i f i ed
r i ght of access t o cr i mi nal t r i al pr oceedi ngs.
Whet her and t o what ext ent pr el i mi nar y hear i ngs may be
cl osed t o t he publ i c i s a quest i on of gr ave i mpor t , f or i t
i nvol ves not onl y t he r i ght of t he accused t o be t r i ed by
an i mpar t i al j ur y, but i t al so has a vi t al r el evancy t o t he
r i ght of t he publ i c t o at t end and t o be pr esent at j udi ci al
pr oceedi ngs.

I d. at 227, 580 P. 2d at 53 ( emphasi s added) . Ther e wi l l be
si t uat i ons, however , wher e t hi s r i ght of t he publ i c t o know must
yi el d t o t he over r i di ng r equi r ement s of due pr ocess. I d. at
230, 580 P. 2d at 55.
On t he same day t hat Gannet t Pac. Cor p. was deci ded,
t hi s cour t al so deci ded Honol ul u Adver t i ser , I nc. v. Takao, 59
Haw. 237, 580 P. 2d 58 ( 1978) . The Takao case r ef er r ed t o t he
deci si on i n Gannet t Pac. Cor p. and i t s descr i pt i on of t he publ i c
r i ght of access. We ar e al so not her e concer ned wi t h t he
publ i c s r i ght t o be pr esent and t o at t end j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs
as we wer e i n [ Gannet t Pac. Cor p. ] . Takao, 59 Haw. at 238, 580
P. 2d at 60. I n [ Gannet t Pac. Cor p. ] , we hel d t hat except under
cer t ai n r ar e and compel l i ng ci r cumst ances, cour t r oompr oceedi ngs
shal l be open t o t he publ i c. I d. ( emphasi s added) .
The quest i on of whet her t he Fi r st Amendment was
i mpl i cat ed i n t he publ i c r i ght of access was not deci ded by
Gannet t Pac. Cor p. Thi s cour t onl y r esponded t o t he quest i on of

- 29 -

whet her t he pr ess had a uni que r i ght of access t o publ i c t r i al s,
above and beyond t hat of t he publ i c. The cour t concl uded t hat
under t he ci r cumst ances t her e was no such deni al of t he Fi r st
Amendment r i ght of f r eedomof t he pr ess because t he cl osur e
[ of t he pr el i mi nar y hear i ng] was di r ect ed at t he publ i c at l ar ge
and was not l i mi t ed t o t he r epr esent at i ves of t he news medi a.
Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 229, 580 P. 2d at 54 ( emphasi s
added) . The r i ght of medi a r epr esent at i ves t o be pr esent
[ dur i ng cour t pr oceedi ngs] i s der i ved f r omt hei r st at us as
member s of t he gener al publ i c . . . t hey occupy no pr i vi l eged
posi t i on vi s- a- vi s t he gener al publ i c. Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59
Haw. at 229- 30, 580 P. 2d at 54- 55.
Ther ef or e, Gannet t Pac. Cor p. s hol di ng r egar di ng a
r i ght of access t o cr i mi nal t r i al s as der i ved f r omt he Fi r st
Amendment i s l i mi t ed t o a det er mi nat i on t hat t he pr ess does not
have a uni que Fi r st Amendment r i ght of access beyond t hat hel d
by t he gener al publ i c.
17
However , t o t he ext ent t hat Gannet t

17
The cour t i n Gannet t Pac. Cor p. based i t s f i ndi ng of no . . .
deni al of a Fi r st Amendment r i ght on t he pr i or i t y of t he Si xt h Amendment
r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y over t he gener al pol i cy of
openness. Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 232, 580 P. 2d at 56 ( The r i ght t o
t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y i s f undament al . ) . The cour t f ound t he i ssue of
cl osur e was best l ef t t o t he di scr et i on of t he cour t t o bal ance t he
def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al wi t h t hi s j ur i sdi ct i on s pol i cy of
openness i n j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. I d. at 233, 580 P. 2d at 56- 57. The
f undament al s of a f ai r t r i al ought t o r equi r e no l ess t han t hat hi ghl y
pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on, whi ch woul d not be admi ssi bl e at t r i al , shoul d be
kept , i f possi bl e, f r omt he eyes and ear s of pr ospect i ve j ur or s. I d. Thi s
cour t f ound t hat i n or der t o cl ose a cour t r oom, t he pr esi di ng j udge must f i nd
t hat t her e i s a subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat an open hear i ng . . . woul d
i nt er f er e wi t h t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y.

- 30 -

Pac. Cor p. decl i ned t o expr essl y r ecogni ze t he publ i c s r i ght of
access i n t er ms of t he pr ot ect i on of t he Fi r st Amendment , t hi s
r est r i ct ed appl i cat i on has been super seded by t he deci si ons of
t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t . We have al r eady not ed t he
si gni f i cant t r adi t i on i n Hawai i of mai nt ai ni ng open cour t
pr oceedi ngs. Fur t her mor e, t he benef i t s i dent i f i ed by t he
Supr eme Cour t under t he l ogi c pr ong as t o t he si gni f i cant
posi t i ve r ol e pl ayed by publ i c access i s equal l y appl i cabl e i n
Hawai i . See Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 8; Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 508. Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat ar t i cl e
1, sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on pr ovi des t he publ i c wi t h
a qual i f i ed r i ght of access t o obser ve cour t pr oceedi ngs i n
cr i mi nal t r i al s.
18

17
I d. at 233, 580 P. 2d at 56- 57 ( emphasi s added) . To det er mi ne whet her t he
l i kel i hood was subst ant i al

t he di st r i ct j udge shal l consi der [ 1] t he nat ur e of t he
evi dence sought t o be pr esent ed; [ 2] t he pr obabi l i t y of
such i nf or mat i on r eachi ng pot ent i al j ur or s; [ 3] t he l i kel y
pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t hi s i nf or mat i on upon pr ospect i ve
veni r emen; and [ 4] t he avai l abi l i t y and ef f i cacy of
al t er nat i ve means t o neut r al i ze t he ef f ect of such
di scl osur es.

I d. at 233- 34, 580 P. 2d at 57. Thi s cour t t hen f ound t hat [ j ] udged by t he
st andar ds we have est abl i shed, however , t her e was an i nsuf f i ci ent basi s f or
[ t he t r i al cour t s] cl osur e or der . I d. at 235, 580 P. 2d at 58.

18
[ T] he r easons under l yi ng openness i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , as
enunci at ed i n [ Gannet t Pac. Cor p. ] , ar e equal l y compel l i ng i n t he ci vi l
cont ext . I n r e Est at e of Campbel l , 106 Hawai i 453, 462, 106 P. 3d 1096, 1105
( 2005) .

- 31 -

C.
Al t hough t he [ Fi r st Amendment ] r i ght of access t o
cr i mi nal t r i al s i s of const i t ut i onal st at ur e, i t i s not
absol ut e. Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 457 U. S. at 606. Except i ons t o
t he gener al r ul e pr esumi ng openness of cr i mi nal t r i al s must be
l i mi t ed and t o pr eser ve compel l i ng i nt er est s. Cl osed
pr oceedi ngs, al t hough not absol ut el y pr ecl uded, must be r ar e and
onl y f or cause shown t hat out wei ghs t he val ue of openness.
Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 501. [ T] he ci r cumst ances under
whi ch t he pr ess and publ i c can be bar r ed f r oma cr i mi nal t r i al
ar e l i mi t ed; t he St at e s j ust i f i cat i on i n denyi ng access must be
a wei ght y one. Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 457 U. S. at 606.
Ther ef or e, t he qual i f i ed r i ght of publ i c access
pr ovi ded by t he Fi r st Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 can be
over come onl y by an over r i di ng i nt er est based on f i ndi ngs t hat
cl osur e i s essent i al t o pr eser ve hi gher val ues and i s nar r owl y
t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hat i nt er est . Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S.
at 510 ( emphasi s added) ; Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 9- 10;
see al so Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 457 U. S. at 606- 07 ( Wher e . . .
t he St at e at t empt s t o deny t he r i ght of access i n or der t o
i nhi bi t t he di scl osur e of sensi t i ve i nf or mat i on, i t must be
shown t hat t he deni al i s necessi t at ed by a compel l i ng
gover nment al i nt er est , and i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hat
i nt er est ) . The t r i al cour t must ar t i cul at e t he i nt er est t he

- 32 -

cl osur e pr ot ect s, al ong wi t h f i ndi ngs speci f i c enough t hat a
r evi ewi ng cour t can det er mi ne whet her t he cl osur e or der was
pr oper l y ent er ed. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 510; Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 10.
Addi t i onal l y, i f t he cour t i s cont empl at i ng whet her
cl osur e of t he cour t r oomi s necessar y, i t must pr ovi de a
r easonabl e oppor t uni t y f or t he publ i c t o obj ect . [ T] he pr ess
and t he gener al publ i c must be gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d
on t he quest i on of t hei r excl usi on. Gl obe Newspaper Co. , 457
U. S. at 609 n. 25 ( ci t i ng Gannet t Co. , 443 U. S. at 401 ( Powel l ,
J . , concur r i ng) ) . The r equi r ement of not i ce cont i nues t o appl y
when t he compel l i ng i nt er est asser t ed i s pr ot ect i on of t he
def endant s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an
i mpar t i al j ur y. Uni t ed St at es v. Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d 1162, 1168
( 9t h Ci r . 1982) ; see al so ABC, I nc. v. St ewar t , 360 F. 3d 90, 95
( 2d Ci r . 2004) ( not i ng t hat no not i ce had been pr ovi ded bef or e
cl osur e of voi r di r e i n j ur y sel ect i on) ; I n r e S. C. Pr ess Ass n,
946 F. 2d 1037, 1040 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) .
The Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has not expl i cat ed a
st andar d f or not i ce. However , i ndi vi dual not i ce may be
pr act i cabl e under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances.
Wi t hout adopt i ng an i nf l exi bl e r ul e, we bel i eve t hat wher e
a cl osur e mot i on i s not f i l ed of r ecor d or made i n open
cour t , and when, as her e, t he cour t has been made awar e of
t he desi r e of speci f i c member s of t he publ i c t o be pr esent ,
r easonabl e st eps shoul d be t aken t o af f or d such per sons an

- 33 -

oppor t uni t y t o submi t t hei r vi ews t o t he cour t bef or e
excl usi on i s accompl i shed.
19

Uni t ed St at es v. Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d 1162, 1168 ( 9t h Ci r . 1982)
( f oot not e added) .
20

I f obj ect i ons ar e made by t hose act ual l y pr esent ,
t he t r i al pr oceedi ngs shoul d be conduct ed t o al l ow t hose
obj ect i ng t o r emoval t o be hear d bef or e a cl osur e or der i s
ent er ed. Uni t ed St at es v. Raf f oul , 826 F. 2d 218, 226 ( 3d Ci r .
1987) . Fur t her , t he cour t r oomshal l not be cl osed except upon
t he cour t s or der . I d. Wr i t t en mot i ons f or cl osur e shoul d be
docket ed i mmedi at el y. I d. Mot i ons f or cl osur e made out si de t he
publ i c s hear i ng shoul d be r enewed i n open cour t bef or e bei ng
act ed upon. I d.

19
To t he ext ent pr act i cabl e, a r easonabl e at t empt shoul d be made t o
not i f y ent i t i es or per sons who have r equest ed Ext ended Cover age of a case.
Ext ended Cover age means any r ecor di ng or br oadcast i ng of pr oceedi ngs t hr ough
t he use of t el evi si on, r adi o, phot ogr aphi c, or r ecor di ng equi pment by t he
medi a or on behal f of educat i onal i nst i t ut i ons. Rul es of t he Supr eme Cour t
of t he St at e of Hawai i ( RSCH) , Rul e 5. 1( c) . Any per son may r equest t he cour t
t o al l ow Ext ended Cover age. RSCH Rul e 5. 1( e) . That r ul e desi gnat es t hat
[ w] hen mor e t han one medi a r epr esent at i ve r equest s ext ended cover age . . . ,
t he medi a col l ect i vel y shal l desi gnat e one r epr esent at i ve t o wor k wi t h t he
coor di nat or , whi ch may f aci l i t at e pr ovi di ng not i ce when cont empl at i ng
cl osur e. RSCH Rul e 5. 1( e) ( 5) .

20
But see Appl i cat i on of The Her al d Co. , 734 F. 2d 93, 103 ( 2d Ci r .
1984) ( not i ng Br ookl i er , but hol di ng t hat gener al publ i c not i ce suf f i ces t o
af f or d an adequat e oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge a cour t r oomcl osur e) ; Cr owe v.
Cnt y. of San Di ego, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1191 ( S. D. Cal . 2002) ( not i ng
Br ookl i er , but decl i ni ng t o pr ovi de speci al not i ce t o t he pr ess because t he
cour t coul d see no r eason why cer t ai n medi a or gani zat i ons deser ved speci al
not i ce and docket ent r y was r easonabl e) ; NBC Subsi di ar y ( KNBC- TV) , I nc. v.
Super i or Cour t , 20 Cal . 4t h 1178, 1217, 980 P. 2d 337, 364- 65 ( 1999) ( not i ng
Br ookl i er , but hol di ng t hat adequat e not i ce of t he cont empl at ed cl osur e i s
pr ovi ded i f t he t r i al j udge announces i n open cour t t hat he or she pl ans t o
hol d or t o consi der hol di ng a pr oceedi ng i n cl osed sessi on or when a mot i on
seeki ng cl osur e i s made i n a wr i t t en f i l i ng t hat i s publ i cl y docket ed
r easonabl y i n advance of a det er mi nat i on hear i ng) .

- 34 -

The r equi r ement s t hat must be sat i sf i ed by a cour t i n
or der t o over come t he qual i f i ed r i ght of t he publ i c t o access
cr i mi nal t r i al s may be di vi ded i nt o pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve
el ement s. Or egoni an Pub. Co. v. U. S. Di st . Cour t f or Di st . of
Or . , 920 F. 2d 1462, 1466 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) . The pr ocedur al
pr er equi si t es t o ent r y of an or der cl osi ng a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng
t o t he publ i c [ ar e] ( 1) t hose excl uded f r omt he pr oceedi ng must
be af f or ded a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y t o st at e t hei r obj ect i ons;
and ( 2) t he r easons suppor t i ng cl osur e must be ar t i cul at ed i n
f i ndi ngs. Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d at 1167- 68. The subst ant i ve
r easons t hat must be f ound and i ncl uded i n t he f i ndi ngs ar e:
( 1) [ t he] cl osur e ser ves a compel l i ng i nt er est ; ( 2) t her e i s a
subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y t hat , i n t he absence of cl osur e, t hi s
compel l i ng i nt er est woul d be har med; and ( 3) t her e ar e no
al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e t hat woul d adequat el y pr ot ect t he
compel l i ng i nt er est . Or egoni an Pub. , 920 F. 2d at 1466 ( ci t i ng
Pr essEnt er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 1314) .
The pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve saf eguar ds of t he
publ i c s r i ght of access ar e not mer e punct i l i os, t o be
obser ved when conveni ent . Phoeni x Newspaper s, I nc. v. U. S.
Di st . Cour t f or Di st . of Ar i z. , 156 F. 3d 940, 951 ( 9t h Ci r .
1998) . Those saf eguar ds
pr ovi de t he essent i al , i ndeed onl y, means by whi ch t he
publ i c s voi ce can be hear d. Al l t oo of t en, par t i es t o t he
l i t i gat i on ar e ei t her i ndi f f er ent or ant i pat het i c t o
di scl osur e r equest s. Thi s i s t o be expect ed: i t i s not

- 35 -

t hei r char ge t o r epr esent t he r i ght s of ot her s. However ,
bal anci ng i nt er est s cannot be per f or med i n a vacuum. Thus,
pr ovi di ng t he publ i c not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d
ensur es t hat t he t r i al cour t wi l l have a t r ue oppor t uni t y
t o wei gh t he l egi t i mat e concer ns of al l t hose af f ect ed by a
cl osur e deci si on. Si mi l ar l y, ent r y of speci f i c f i ndi ngs
al l ows f ai r assessment of t he t r i al j udge s r easoni ng by
t he publ i c and t he appel l at e cour t s, enhanci ng t r ust i n t he
j udi ci al pr ocess and mi ni mi zi ng f ear t hat j ust i ce i s bei ng
admi ni st er ed cl andest i nel y.

I d. ( emphasi s added) . The pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons of t he Fi r st
Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 r i ght of access t o cr i mi nal
pr ocedur es ar e cr i t i cal t o i nf or mt he af f ect ed par t y, i . e. t he
publ i c, t hat t hei r r i ght s ar e i n i mmi nent danger . Ther ef or e,
t he st andar ds pr omul gat ed by t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t
pl ace t he r esponsi bi l i t y on t he t r i al cour t t o pr ovi de not i ce
t hat a compel l i ng i nt er est may necessi t at e cl osur e of a
pr oceedi ng, and af f or d an oppor t uni t y f or t he publ i c t o be
hear d. Requi r i ng speci f i c f i ndi ngs on t he r ecor d enabl es t he
t r i al cour t t o addr ess each el ement necessar y f or cl osur e and
al l ows an appel l at e cour t t o r evi ew t he r easoni ng of t he t r i al
j udge t o ensur e t hat pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c r i ght was
adequat el y consi der ed.
D.
I n det er mi ni ng whet her a const i t ut i onal r i ght of
access i s appl i cabl e t o a par t i cul ar por t i on of a t r i al
pr oceedi ng not yet deci ded by t he Supr eme Cour t , cour t s have
exami ned whet her exper i ence and l ogi c i ndi cat e t hat t he
pr oceedi ng shoul d be open. Once such a r i ght i s i mpl i cat ed, any

- 36 -

cl osur e or l i mi t at i on of access must demonst r at e compl i ance wi t h
t he pr escr i bed pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve r equi r ement s. We
f i r st addr ess t he mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s, and second,
t he seal i ng of a t r anscr i pt of cl osed pr oceedi ngs.
1.
When t he pr oceedi ng at quest i on i s, as i n t hi s case,
t he exami nat i on of j ur or s dur i ng a cr i mi nal t r i al i n or der t o
i nvest i gat e pot ent i al j ur or mi sconduct , t he def endant s Si xt h
Amendment r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y may be i mpl i cat ed and may
conf l i ct wi t h t he r i ght of access of t he publ i c. I n al l
cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, t he accused shal l enj oy t he r i ght t o a
speedy and publ i c t r i al , by an i mpar t i al j ur y of t he St at e and
di st r i ct wher ei n t he cr i me shal l have been commi t t ed[ . ] U. S.
Const . Amend. VI . The Hawai i Const i t ut i on pr ovi des si mi l ar
pr ot ect i on: [ i ] n al l cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, t he accused shal l
enj oy t he r i ght t o a speedy and publ i c t r i al by an i mpar t i al
j ur y of t he di st r i ct wher ei n t he cr i me shal l have been
commi t t ed[ . ] Haw. Const . ar t . I , 14.
The conf l i ct bet ween t he publ i c s r i ght of access and
t he def endant s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an
i mpar t i al j ur y ar i ses because i n cont r ast t o t he benef i t s of
open t r i al s, j ur y del i ber at i ons r equi r e pr i vacy. I t i s a
car di nal pr i nci pl e t hat t he del i ber at i ons of t he j ur y shal l
r emai n pr i vat e and secr et [ . ] Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S.

- 37 -

725, 737 ( 1993) . [ P] ubl i c pol i cy demands t hat t he sanct i t y of
j ur y del i ber at i ons be vi gor ousl y guar ded t o ensur e f r ankness and
open di scussi on. St at e v. Ki m, 103 Hawai i 285, 292, 81 P. 3d
1200, 1207 ( 2003) .
The pur pose f or pr ovi di ng secr et del i ber at i ons i s t o
ensur e t he i mpar t i al i t y of t he j ur y. The Supr eme Cour t has
l ong r ecogni zed t hat adver se publ i ci t y can endanger t he abi l i t y
of a def endant t o r ecei ve a f ai r t r i al . Gannet t Co. , 443 U. S.
at 378.
Compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est i n t he i nt egr i t y of j ur y
del i ber at i on r equi r es t hat t he pr i vacy of such
del i ber at i ons and communi cat i ons deal i ng wi t h t hembe
pr eser ved. Conf i dent i al i t y i s a shi el d agai nst ext er nal
consi der at i ons ent er i ng i nt o t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess.
Such a shi el d pr event s under mi ni ng of t he i nt egr i t y of t he
j ur y syst em. J ur i es must be per mi t t ed t o del i ber at e f ul l y
and f r eel y, unhamper ed by t he pr essur es and ext r aneous
i nf l uences whi ch coul d r esul t f r omaccess by t he pr ess t o
t he del i ber at i ve pr ocess.

Uni t ed St at es v. Gur ney, 558 F. 2d 1202, 1210- 11 ( 5t h Ci r . 1977)
( emphasi s added) .
The r i ght t o a t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y i s
f undament al . Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 232, 580 P. 2d at
56. Wher e a def endant s r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y may be
compr omi sed by t he possi bi l i t y of ext er nal i nt er f er ence wi t h
j ur y del i ber at i ons or j ur or mi sconduct , t he cour t has a dut y t o
act .
Wher e t he t r i al cour t det er mi nes t hat t he j ur or mi sconduct
coul d subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ce t he def endant s r i ght t o a
f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y, a r ebut t abl e pr esumpt i on of
pr ej udi ce i s r ai sed and t he cour t must i nvest i gat e t he

- 38 -

t ot al i t y of ci r cumst ances t o det er mi ne i f t he mi sconduct
i mpact ed t he j ur y s i mpar t i al i t y.

St at e v. Yamada, 108 Hawai i 474, 479, 122 P. 3d 254, 259 ( 2005)
( emphasi s added) . When a cour t i nvest i gat es al l egat i ons of
j ur or mi sconduct pur suant t o i t s dut y t o pr ot ect a def endant s
r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y, i t s act i ons const i t ut e t r i al
pr oceedi ngs, and r i ght s of publ i c access under t he Fi r st
Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 may at t ach. See Ri chmond
Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 580 ( hol di ng t hat t he r i ght t o at t end
cr i mi nal t r i al s i s i mpl i ci t i n t he guar ant ees of t he Fi r st
Amendment ) . Ther ef or e, t hat r i ght of publ i c access t o obser ve
cr i mi nal t r i al s i s pot ent i al l y i n conf l i ct wi t h t he pol i cy of
pr ot ect i ng t he i nt egr i t y of j ur y del i ber at i ons i n f ur t her ance of
a def endant s r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y. Thus, we must exami ne
i f consi der at i ons of t r adi t i on and l ogi c pr ovi de a qual i f i ed
Fi r st Amendment r i ght of publ i c access t o mi dt r i al exami nat i on
of j ur or s t o i nvest i gat e pot ent i al j ur or mi sconduct .
a.
Ther e i s no cl ear t r adi t i on of cl osi ng a cour t r oomi n
Hawai i t o conduct mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s i n or der t o
i nvest i gat e j ur or mi sconduct . No Hawai i case has ever uphel d
t he cl osur e of a cour t pr oceedi ng dur i ng t r i al .
21
Cl osur e has

21
But cf . St at e v. Swanson, 112 Hawai i 343, 355, 145 P. 3d 886, 898
( App. 2006) ( concl udi ng t hat def endant s const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o a publ i c
t r i al wer e not i mpl i cat ed when t he j ur y r et ur ned i t s ver di ct af t er nor mal

- 39 -

been i nval i dat ed based on var i ous gr ounds. See Gannet t Pac.
Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 235, 580 P. 2d at 58; St at e v. Or t i z, 91 Hawai i
181, 981 P. 2d 1127 ( 1999) ( hol di ng t hat when a def endant i nvokes
hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al , t he cour t may onl y
cl ose t he cour t r oomunder t he st r i ct t est set f or t h i n Wal l er v.
Geor gi a, 467 U. S. 39 ( 1984) )
22
; I n r e Est at e of Campbel l , 106
Hawai i 453, 454, 106 P. 3d 1096, 1097 ( 2005) ( hol di ng t hat a
common l aw pr esumpt i on of j udi ci al openness accompani es pr obat e
pr oceedi ngs t hat may be over come onl y upon a showi ng of st r ong
count er vai l i ng r easons t hat out wei gh t he publ i c s pr esumpt i ve
r i ght of access t o cour t pr oceedi ngs and r ecor ds) . Fur t her mor e,

21
busi ness hour s, when t he cour t house was cl osed t o t he publ i c, because t he
cl osur e was t oo t r i vi al t o i mpl i cat e t he const i t ut i onal guar ant ees) ; Fr ei t as
v. Admi n. Di r . of Cour t s, 104 Hawai i 483, 486, 92 P. 3d 993, 996 ( 2004)
( decl i ni ng t o ext end Fi r st Amendment r i ght s of access t o admi ni st r at i ve
hear i ngs) .

22
I n Wal l er , t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed t he ext ent of t he
accused s Si xt h Amendment r i ght s at t r i al . Wal l er , 469 U. S. at 44. Wal l er
st at es t hat t he r i ght t o an open t r i al may gi ve way i n cer t ai n cases t o
ot her r i ght s or i nt er est s[ . ] I d. at 45. Based on Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I ,
Wal l er ar t i cul at ed a f our - par t t est :

[ 1] t he par t y seeki ng t o cl ose t he hear i ng must advance an
over r i di ng i nt er est t hat i s l i kel y t o be pr ej udi ced, [ 2]
t he cl osur e must be no br oader t han necessar y t o pr ot ect
t hat i nt er est , [ 3] t he t r i al cour t must consi der r easonabl e
al t er nat i ves t o cl osi ng t he pr oceedi ng, [ 4] and i t must
make f i ndi ngs adequat e t o suppor t t he cl osur e.

I d. at 48. I n Or t i z, t hi s cour t addr essed t he necessar y eval uat i on a cour t
must appl y when a def endant obj ect s t o cl osur e of cour t r oompr oceedi ngs t hat
a cour t deems may be necessar y t o pr ot ect a def endant s Si xt h Amendment
r i ght s. Or t i z adopt ed Wal l er s f our - par t t est and appl i ed i t t o det er mi ne
whet her t he cour t r oomwas pr oper l y cl osed t o t he def endant s r el at i ves and
gi r l f r i end over t he def endant s obj ect i on. Or t i z, 91 Hawai i at 191, 981 P. 2d
at 1137. Thi s cour t f ound t hat t he t r i al cour t s act i ons had vi ol at ed t he
def endant s r i ght t o a publ i c t r i al . I d. at 193, 981 P. 2d 1139.


- 40 -

no Hawai i case i nvol vi ng i ndi vi dual i zed voi r di r e of j ur or s;
t hat i s, exami nat i on of j ur or s out si de t he pr esence of t he ot her
j ur or s, cont ai ns any i ndi cat i on t hat t he voi r di r e was conduct ed
i n cl osed pr oceedi ngs.
23

The Fi f t h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s has hel d t hat a
cour t may cl ose a cour t r oomwi t hout a pr e- cl osur e hear i ng f or
mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s r egar di ng mi sconduct . U. S. v.
Edwar ds, 823 F. 2d 111, 117 ( 5t h Ci r . 1987) ( di scussed i nf r a) .
However , t hat case expl i ci t l y r el i ed on f unct i onal
consi der at i on[ s] f or an answer r at her t han hi st or i cal
pr ecedent .
24
I d. at 117. Addi t i onal l y, i n t he past quar t er -
cent ur y si nce Edwar ds was deci ded, f ew cases have r el i ed upon
i t s appr oach.
One such case i s St at e v. Hal ver son, 309 P. 3d 795
( Wash. Ct . App. 2013) , wher e t he t r i al cour t quest i oned a j ur or
i n chamber s, of f t he r ecor d, dur i ng del i ber at i ons wi t hout t he
pr esence of t he def endant . Hal ver son, 309 P. 3d at 796. The
deci si on i n Hal ver son uphel d i n camer a exami nat i on of j ur or s
out si de of t he def endant s pr esence based on hi st or i cal

23
See St at e v. Ho, 131 Hawai i 59, 314 P. 3d 849 ( App. 2013) ; St at e
v. Keohokapu, 127 Hawai i 91, 95, 276 P. 3d 660, 664 ( 2012) ; St at e v. Mar k, 120
Hawai i 499, 521, 210 P. 3d 22, 44 ( App. 2009) ; St at e v. Paul i ne, 100 Hawai i
356, 369, 60 P. 3d 306, 319 ( 2002) ; Or t i z, 91 Hawai i at 186, 981 P. 2d at 1132.

24
Edwar ds does not def i ne f unct i onal , but t he cour t exami ned t he
del i ber at i ve pr ocess and hypot hesi zed how open pr oceedi ngs coul d di sr upt t hat
pr ocess. Edwar ds, 823 F. 2d at 117. Ther ef or e, i n t hi s cont ext f unct i onal
means t he oper at i ons or pr ocess of a wor ki ng j ur y.


- 41 -

pr act i ces i n Washi ngt on and r el i ance upon Edwar ds. I d. at 797-
98. However , Hal ver son r epr esent s a si gni f i cant l y di f f er ent
hi st or i cal t r adi t i on t han t hat of Hawai i , as our l aw does not
al l ow a j udge t o quest i on a j ur or about pot ent i al mi sconduct
wi t hout t he def endant pr esent . St at e v. Est r ada, 69 Haw. 204,
226, 738 P. 2d 812, 827- 28 ( 1987) ( hol di ng t hat t he j udge s ex
par t e ent r y i nt o t he j ur y r oomand ext ended expl anat i ons i n
r esponse t o j ur y quest i ons was i mpr oper ) .
25
A def endant i n a
cr i mi nal case has a pr ocedur al and const i t ut i onal r i ght t o be
pr esent whenever t he cour t communi cat es wi t h t he j ur y. St at e v.
Poki ni , 55 Haw. 640, 651, 526 P. 2d 94, 105 ( 1974) .
We al so not e t hat t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t per mi t t ed cl osur e
of a cour t r oomi n or der t o addr ess j ur or s concer ns r egar di ng
t hei r saf et y due t o t he at t endance at t he t r i al of some
i nt i mi dat i ng i ndi vi dual s. Uni t ed St at es v. I vest er , 316 F. 3d
955, 960 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) . The I vest er cour t f i r st not ed t hat
[ h] ad t he di st r i ct cour t deci ded t o quest i on [ t he j ur or ] i n
chamber s wi t hout t he def endant or spect at or s, we woul d concl ude
t hat t her e wer e no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons, i d. at 959,
whi ch, as not ed, i s cont r ar y t o our l aw. Addi t i onal l y, t he

25
The Est r ada cour t exer ci sed i t s super vi sor y power s t o decl ar e a
j udge s pr act i ce of per sonal l y ent er i ng t he j ur y r oomt o answer t he j ur or s
quest i ons i mpr oper and pr ej udi ci al . Est r ada, 69 Haw. at 228, 738 P. 2d at
828. I n ei t her a cr i mi nal or ci vi l cont ext , def endant s ar e ent i t l ed t o a
f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y t r i al f r ee f r ompr ej udi ci al ex par t e i nf l uences.
I d.


- 42 -

cour t char act er i zed t he assur ances made t o t he j ur y i n t he
cl osed cour t r oomnot as a const i t ut i onal concer n but as an
admi ni st r at i ve mat t er : quest i oni ng t he j ur or s t o det er mi ne
whet her t hey f el t saf e i s an admi ni st r at i ve j ur y pr obl em. I d.
at 960. Thus, a si gni f i cant r eason I vest er f ound no
const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on i n t he cl osur e of t he cour t r oomwas
because j ur or mi sconduct was not at i ssue, and t he def endant s
r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al was not i mpl i cat ed. I d. I vest er does not
hol d t hat t he exami nat i on of a j ur or concer ni ng a f ai r t r i al may
be addr essed out si de t he pr esence of t he publ i c.
26
I d.
Ther ef or e, Edwar ds and t he f ew cases t hat r el y on i t s
hol di ng pr ovi de weak suppor t f or a t r adi t i on of cl osi ng
cour t r oompr oceedi ngs t o conduct mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s
t o i nvest i gat e pot ent i al j ur or mi sconduct .
27

26
Mat t er s di r ect l y i mpact i ng t he secur i t y or saf et y of j ur or s mi ght
appr opr i at el y be addr essed i n cl osed pr oceedi ngs, but onl y wher e r eveal i ng
t he i nf or mat i on publ i cl y coul d f r ust r at e ef f or t s t o pr ot ect j ur or s, and a
t r anscr i pt of t he pr oceedi ng r emai ns seal ed onl y f or so l ong as necessar y.
See sect i on I I . D. 2, i nf r a.

27
The Thi r d Ci r cui t has expr essed a gener al pr ef er ence, f or
i ndi vi dual , i n camer a, quest i oni ng of a possi bl y- t ai nt ed j ur or , [ w] her e
t her e i s a si gni f i cant possi bi l i t y t hat a j ur or or pot ent i al j ur or has been
exposed t o pr ej udi ci al ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. Gov t of V. I . v. Dowl i ng,
814 F. 2d 134, 137 ( 3d Ci r . 1987) ( decl i ni ng t o f i nd er r or i n t he en banc
exami nat i on of j ur or s r egar di ng pot ent i al mi sconduct ) . However , t he cases
ci t ed by Dowl i ng do not di scuss t he i ssue of publ i c access t o mi dt r i al
exami nat i on of j ur or s. See Uni t ed St at es ex r el . Dogget t v. Yeager , 472 F. 2d
229, 239 ( 3d Ci r . 1973) ( r ever si ng a f i ndi ng of no pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant
by ext er nal i nf or mat i on i n par t because t he cour t exami ned j ur or s as a panel
r at her t han i ndi vi dual l y) ; Uni t ed St at es v. D Andr ea, 495 F. 2d 1170, 1173 n. 8
( 3d Ci r . 1974) ( f i ndi ng no pr ej udi ce t o def endant f r omext er nal i nf or mat i on
and not i ng t hat cases wi l l ar i se wher e en banc exami nat i on [ of j ur or s
concer ni ng pot ent i al mi sconduct ] i s pr ef er abl e and shoul d be per mi t t ed[ . ] ) ;
Uni t ed St at es v. St ar ks, 515 F. 2d 112, 125 ( 3d Ci r . 1975) ( f i ndi ng no abuse

- 43 -

I n cont r ast , cour t s have f ound t hat pr et r i al and post -
t r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s shoul d be hel d open t o t he publ i c.
See Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 510 ( pr et r i al voi r di r e of
pot ent i al j ur or s) ; accor d St ewar t , 360 F. 3d at 98 ( same) ; Uni t ed
St at es v. Si mone, 14 F. 3d 833, 840 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) ( post t r i al
hear i ngs t o i nvest i gat e j ur or mi sconduct ) ; Bar ber v. Shop- Ri t e
of Engl ewood & Assocs, I nc. , 923 A. 2d 286, 291- 92 ( N. J . Super .
Ct . App. Di v. 2007) ( same) .
I n Si mone, t he Thi r d Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s appl i ed
t he exper i ence and l ogi c t est t o i t s anal ysi s of post - t r i al
exami nat i on of j ur or s and f ound no cl ear hi st or y of openness or
cl osur e. Si mone, 14 F. 3d at 838. Accor di ngl y, t he cour t
concl uded t hat on t he whol e, t he exper i ence pr ong of t he
l ogi c and exper i ence t est pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance i n t hi s
case. I d. Ther ef or e, Si mone r el [ i ed] pr i mar i l y on t he
l ogi c pr ong of t he [ exper i ence and l ogi c] t est . Si mone, 14

27
of di scr et i on i n r ef usi ng t o exami ne j ur or s i n camer a r egar di ng pot ent i al
mi sconduct , but gener al l y r ecommendi ng exami nat i on out si de t he pr esence of
ot her j ur or s) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Addoni zi o, 451 F. 2d 49, 67 ( 3d Ci r .
1971) ( di scussi ng exami nat i on of pr ospect i ve j ur or s and r ecommendi ng
exami nat i on out si de t he pr esence of ot her j ur or s under cer t ai n
ci r cumst ances) ; Gov t of t he V. I . v. Rosado, 699 F. 2d 121, 125 ( 3d Ci r . 1983)
( same) . Ther ef or e, Dowl i ng and i t s associ at ed cases do not st and f or t he
pr oposi t i on t hat mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s shoul d be hel d out si de t he
pr esence of t he publ i c because t hose cases di scuss t he need t o keep j ur or
t est i mony f r omot her j ur or s, but do not addr ess t he i ssue of publ i c access.
Fur t her mor e, t hose cases do not est abl i sh a t r adi t i on of cl osi ng pr oceedi ngs
t o conduct such an exami nat i on, because i n each case r evi ewed by t he Thi r d
Ci r cui t t he exami nat i on of j ur or s or pr ospect i ve j ur or s t ook pl ace i n open
cour t .


- 44 -

F. 3d at 838. See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Cr i den, 675 F. 2d 550,
555 ( 3d Ci r . 1982) ( f i ndi ng hi st or i cal anal ysi s i r r el evant , and
exami ni ng t he i ssue of f i r st amendment access t o pr et r i al
hear i ngs i n t er ms of t he cur r ent r ol e of t he [ F] i r st
[ A] amendment and t he soci et al i nt er est s i n open pr et r i al
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs) ; Bar ber , 923 A. 2d at 291- 92 ( Gi ven t hat
t her e i s no absol ut e r i ght of access t o a ci vi l t r i al and t hat
t her e i s no hi st or y of r epor t ed and sanct i oned publ i c access t o
post - ver di ct ci vi l j ur y voi r di r e concer ni ng j ur or mi sconduct ,
t he f i r st pr ong of t he [ exper i ence and l ogi c] t est pr ovi des
l i t t l e gui dance. ) ( emphasi s added) .
I n l i ght of Hawai i s case l aw and our f i r ml y embedded
gener al pol i cy of open t r i al s and wi t h ver y mi ni mal case
aut hor i t y suppor t i ng cl osur e, t her e i s no cl ear t r adi t i on of
ei t her open or cl osed pr oceedi ngs when a cour t conduct s a
mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s r egar di ng pot ent i al mi sconduct .
On t he ot her hand, even assumi ng t her e i s no t r adi t i on of
hol di ng such pr oceedi ngs i n open cour t , i t cannot be sai d t hat
t her e i s a t r adi t i on i n Hawai i s cour t s of pr event i ng publ i c
access t o mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s. Ther ef or e, we
concl ude t hat t he exper i ence pr ong of t he l ogi c and exper i ence
t est pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance i n t hi s case and i t i s appr opr i at e
t o gi ve gr eat er wei ght t o t he l ogi c pr ong of t he t r adi t i on and

- 45 -

l ogi c t est . See Si mone, 14 F. 3d at 838, Cr i den, 675 F. 2d at
555, Bar ber , 923 A. 2d at 291- 92.
b.
Under t he l ogi c consi der at i on, t he r i ght of t he
publ i c t o at t end a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng r el i es on whet her publ i c
access pl ays a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e i n t he f unct i oni ng of
t he par t i cul ar pr ocess i n quest i on. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478
U. S. at 8. The Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has i dent i f i ed si x
soci et al i nt er est s t hat ar e advanced by open pr oceedi ngs, al l
of whi ch ar e pr esent i n t hi s case. See Ri chmond Newspaper s, 448
U. S. at 569- 572; Cr i den, 675 F. 2d at 556 ( r ef er r i ng t o t he
consi der at i ons under t he l ogi c pr ong as soci et al i nt er est s) .
The f i r st soci et al i nt er est advanced by publ i c access
t o cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs i s t hat access pr omot es i nf or med
di scussi on of gover nment al af f ai r s by pr ovi di ng t he publ i c wi t h
a mor e compl et e under st andi ng of t he j udi ci al syst em, ser vi ng an
educat i ve i nt er est . See Ri chmond Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 572;
i d. at 584 ( St evens, J . , concur r i ng) ; i d. at 595- 96 ( Br ennan,
J . , concur r i ng) . A second soci et al i nt er est advanced by open
pr oceedi ngs i s assur ance t hat t he pr oceedi ngs wer e conduct ed
f ai r l y t o al l concer ned t her eby pr omot i ng a per cept i on of
f ai r ness. I d. at 569, 570. Publ i c conf i dence i n and r espect
f or t he j udi ci al syst emcan be achi eved onl y by per mi t t i ng f ul l
publ i c vi ew of t he pr oceedi ngs. I d. at 595 ( Br ennan, J . ,

- 46 -

concur r i ng) . I n t he case of mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s,
publ i c access t o such pr oceedi ngs woul d educat e t he publ i c on
t he i mpor t ance of an i mpar t i al j ur y. Fur t her , an open
pr oceedi ng woul d pr ovi de assur ance t hat t he syst emi s f ai r t o
al l concer ned because i t woul d ensur e t he publ i c t hat
si gni f i cant mi sconduct , i f any, i s bei ng appr opr i at el y addr essed
and managed.
Par al l el t o t he educat i onal benef i t s and t he assur ance
of f ai r ness, publ i c access t o cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs al so has a
si gni f i cant communi t y t her apeut i c val ue because i t pr ovi des an
out l et f or communi t y concer n, host i l i t y, and emot i on.
Ri chmond Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 570- 71. Soci et al i nt er est i n
open pr oceedi ngs i s especi al l y hi gh i n a newswor t hy case wher e
t he publ i c has al r eady been f ol l owi ng t he pr ogr ess of a
pr oceedi ng t hr ough news r epor t s and ot her medi a, or t he case
ot her wi se r esonat es as si gni f i cant i n t he communi t y. Wher e t he
publ i c has made a si gni f i cant i nvest ment of i nt er est and
at t ent i on i n a case or pr oceedi ng, cl osi ng a por t i on of t he
pr oceedi ng wi l l undoubt edl y br eed concer n and r esul t i n
unbr i dl ed specul at i on, wher eas open pr oceedi ngs wi l l r esol ve
such concer ns. I t i s not ed t hat t he var i ous ci r cumst ances i n
t he pr esent case r esul t ed i n si gni f i cant publ i c at t ent i on.
Open pr oceedi ngs al so advance a f our t h soci et al
i nt er est by ser vi ng as a check on t he mi sconduct of

- 47 -

par t i ci pant s by exposi ng t he j udi ci al pr ocess t o publ i c
scr ut i ny, t hus di scour agi ng deci si ons based on secr et bi as or
par t i al i t y. See i d. at 569 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) . The f i f t h
soci et al i nt er est advanced by publ i c obser vat i on i s t hat publ i c
access enhances t he per f or mance of al l i nvol ved. See i d. at 569
n. 7. Openi ng t he exami nat i on pr ocess t o publ i c scr ut i ny assur es
t he publ i c of t he i nt egr i t y of t he par t i ci pant s i n t he syst em,
and el evat es conf i dence i n t he j udi ci al pr ocess by pr ovi di ng
gr eat er t r anspar ency. The f i nal soci et al i nt er est , al so
i mpl i cat ed i n t he pr esent case, i s t hat publ i c access t o
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs di scour ages per j ur y. See i d. at 596- 97
( Br ennan, J . , concur r i ng) . Publ i c obser vat i on of j ur or
exami nat i on wi l l di scour age per j ur y because member s of t he
publ i c who mi ght be abl e t o cont r adi ct f al se t est i mony wi l l not
l ear n of t hat t est i mony unl ess t he pr oceedi ngs ar e open t o t he
publ i c.
Mor eover , t her e does not appear t o be any pol i cy- based
j ust i f i cat i on f or an acr oss- t he- boar d deni al of t he Fi r st
Amendment r i ght of access t o t he nar r ow cat egor y of mi dt r i al
i nqui r i es i nt o j ur y mi sconduct . I t i s appar ent t hat i n t he vast
maj or i t y of cr i mi nal cases a need f or a mi dt r i al exami nat i on of
a j ur or f or pot ent i al mi sconduct wi l l not ar i se, and onl y i n a
smal l por t i on of t hose cases when t he need does ar i se wi l l any
of t he r i sks associ at ed wi t h a hi gh pr of i l e case i nvol vi ng

- 48 -

ext ensi ve medi a cover age be pr esent . Thus, a r ul e aut omat i cal l y
al l owi ng cl osur e of t r i al pr oceedi ngs f or mi dt r i al quest i oni ng
i s nei t her war r ant ed nor j ust i f i ed i n l i ght of t he r equi r ement s
of ar t i cl e I , sect i ons 4 and 14 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on f or a
publ i c t r i al .
28
Even i n a hi gh- pr of i l e case, i t shoul d not
aut omat i cal l y be assumed t hat mi dt r i al j ur or quest i oni ng wi l l
necessar i l y endanger a def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r and i mpar t i al
j ur y.
We al so f i nd t he r easons set f or t h i n Edwar ds f or i t s
hol di ng t hat t hat t her e i s no Fi r st Amendment r i ght of t he
publ i c t o at t end mi dt r i al quest i oni ng t o be unper suasi ve. See
Edwar ds, 823 F. 2d at 117. The r at i onal e of t he Edwar ds
deci si on i s based upon t he concl usi on t hat an open cour t
pr oceedi ng woul d subst ant i al l y r ai se t he r i sk of dest r oyi ng t he
ef f ect i veness of t he j ur y as a del i ber at i ve body because t he

28
An acr oss- t he- boar d r ul e al l owi ng cl osur e at t he pr esi di ng
j udge s di scr et i on woul d appear t o be at odds wi t h t he ABA Pr i nci pl es f or
J ur i es and J ur y Tr i al s. J ur or voi r di r e shoul d be open and accessi bl e f or
publ i c vi ew . . . . Cl osi ng voi r di r e pr oceedi ngs shoul d onl y occur af t er a
f i ndi ng by t he cour t t hat t her e i s a t hr eat t o t he saf et y of t he j ur or s or
evi dence of at t empt s t o i nt i mi dat e or i nf l uence t he j ur y. Pr i nci pal s f or
J ur i es and J ur y Tr i al s, St andar d 7( A. 1) , ABA ( August 2005) ( avai l abl e at
ht t p: / / aj a. ncsc. dni . us/ conf er ences/ 2010Annual / Speaker Mat er i al s/ 44%20-
%20Mi ze%20ABA%20j ur y%20pr i nci pl es. pdf , l ast vi si t ed J une 17, 2014) ( emphasi s
added) . Thi s st andar d acknowl edges t hat est abl i shed l aw r equi r es cour t s t o
bal ance t he pr i vacy i nt er est s of j ur or s and t he r i ght s of l i t i gant s and t he
publ i c when det er mi ni ng whet her t o keep i nf or mat i on t ouchi ng on t he pr i vat e
l i ves of j ur or s out of t he publ i c domai n . . . . [ and i s] desi gned t o
est abl i sh a f r amewor k wi t hi n whi ch cour t s may bal ance t hose i nt er est s. I d. ,
cmt . Al t hough t he comment ar y i ndi cat es t he st andar d i s f ocused on j ur y
sel ect i on, i d. , t he l anguage of t he st andar d does not r est r i ct i t s
appl i cat i on t o pr et r i al voi r di r e.


- 49 -

exami nat i on pl aces t he at t or ney i n conf l i ct wi t h t he j ur or and
may cr eat e t ensi on bet ween member s of t he j ur y panel . I d.
However , Edwar ds r at i onal e does not expl ai n why a cl osed
pr oceedi ng woul d addr ess t hi s concer n. See i d. As Si mone
poi nt edl y obser ved, t he Edwar ds cour t pr ovi des l i t t l e
expl anat i on f or i t s concl usi on t hat an open hear i ng woul d
exacer bat e [ t ] he del et er i ous ef f ect s of t he mi dt r i al
exami nat i on. See Edwar ds, 823 F. 2d at 117; Si mone, 14 F. 3d at
840.
Fur t her mor e, Edwar ds under cut s i t s own hol di ng by
acknowl edgi ng t hat bal anci ng t he secr ecy necessar y t o guar ant ee
an i mpar t i al j ur y wi t h t he publ i c s r i ght of access may not
al ways r esul t i n cl osur e: we do not f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y
t hat t he [ F] i r st [ A] mendment . . . mi ght r equi r e t hat
pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng t he quest i oni ng of j ur or s be hel d i n open
cour t . Edwar ds, 823 F. 2d at 117 n. 5.
29
Edwar ds f ur t her
obser ves t hat The i ssue of pot ent i al j ur or mi sconduct goes t o
t he ver y hear t of publ i c conf i dence i n t he f ai r ness or

29
However , Edwar ds t est f or a Fi r st Amendment chal l enget hat i n
or der t o sust ai n a [ F] i r st [ A] mendment chal l enge, f act or s must exi st t o
demonst r at e t hat open pr oceedi ngs woul d pl ay a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e i n
t he f unct i oni ng of t he par t i cul ar pr oceedi ngs i n quest i onr ever ses t he
bur den expr essed i n Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , because Edwar ds r equi r es t he
pr oponent of open pr oceedi ngs t o demonst r at e a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e t hat
open pr oceedi ngs woul d pl ay, r at her t han r equi r i ng t he pr oponent of cl osur e
t o demonst r at e a subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y of pr ej udi ce. See Pr ess- Ent er pr i se
I I , 478 U. S. at 14 ( hol di ng t hat t he pr el i mi nar y hear i ng shal l be cl osed
onl y i f speci f i c f i ndi ngs ar e made demonst r at i ng t hat . . . t her e i s a
subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y t hat t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al wi l l be
pr ej udi ced . . . . ) ( emphasi s added) .


- 50 -

appear ance of f ai r ness i n j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. Once t he
spect r e of a t ai nt ed j ur y i s r ai sed, publ i c scr ut i ny of t he
r esol ut i on of t he i ssue i s essent i al [ . ] I d. at 116 ( emphasi s
added) .
Edwar ds, Hal ver son, and I vest er al so pr esent a mor e
f undament al const i t ut i onal pr obl em. I f t he publ i c s r i ght t o
access and obser ve cr i mi nal t r i al s can be anal yzed and
det er mi ned out of publ i c vi ew, t he publ i c has no oppor t uni t y t o
pr ot ect t hat r i ght . See Phoeni x Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at 951
( hol di ng t hat t he const i t ut i onal saf eguar ds pr ovi de t he
essent i al , i f not onl y, means by whi ch t he publ i c s voi ce can be
hear d) . I t may wel l be t hat i n al l t hr ee cases t her e wer e
subst ant i ve r easons t hat secr ecy was r equi r ed f or t he pr oper
f unct i on of t he cour t . Those r easons coul d have been
ar t i cul at ed as f i ndi ngs, sat i sf yi ng const i t ut i onal
r equi r ement s.
30
However , had t he cour t s under t aken t o make
f i ndi ngs, t he publ i c s r i ght of access woul d have been
consi der ed, and a r evi ewi ng cour t woul d have been abl e t o
det er mi ne whet her t he publ i c r i ght had been adequat el y
pr ot ect ed. These cases di d not i dent i f y a per suasi ve l ogi cal
r eason why mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s t o i nvest i gat e
mi sconduct shoul d al l ow cl osur e of a cour t r oomwi t hout

30
For i nst ance, i n I vest er , t he cour t di scussed t he [ j ur or s
saf et y concer ns] wi t h counsel i n open cour t wi t h t he j ur y absent . I vest er ,
316 F. 3d at 957- 58.

- 51 -

consi der at i on of t he r i ght of access of t he publ i c. On t he
cont r ar y, Edwar ds expr essl y i dent i f i ed a pot ent i al Fi r st
Amendment chal l enge t o cl osur e, t her eby expl i ci t l y r ecogni zi ng,
at a mi ni mum, a qual i f i ed Fi r st Amendment i nt er est i n t hat
pr oceedi ng.
c.
Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat t he qual i f i ed r i ght of access
t o cr i mi nal t r i al s under ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on i s not ext i ngui shed by t he mer e necessi t y t o
conduct mi dt r i al exami nat i on of j ur or s t o i nvest i gat e pot ent i al
j ur or mi sconduct . However , at t he same t i me a def endant s
ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 14 r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al under t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on i s an over r i di ng i nt er est t hat may r equi r e t hat
such pr oceedi ngs be hel d i n cl osed cour t .
31
Accor di ngl y, when
t he over r i di ng i nt er est asser t ed i s t he pr ot ect i on of
def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , t he t est pr oscr i bed by Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I I appr opr i at el y bal ances t hose compet i ng
const i t ut i onal i nt er est s. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 14.

31
We ar e not pr esent ed wi t h, and t her ef or e do not addr ess, a
si t uat i on wher e a cr i mi nal def endant r equest s t hat cour t pr oceedi ngs r emai n
open. See Wal l er , 467 U. S. at 47 n. 6 ( not i ng t hat [ o] ne of t he r easons
of t en advanced f or cl osi ng a t r i al avoi di ng t ai nt i ng of t he j ur y by pr et r i al
publ i ci t y ( e. g. , [ Pr essEnt er pr i se I ] , 464 U. S. , at 510) i s l ar gel y absent
when a def endant makes an i nf or med deci si on t o obj ect t o t he cl osi ng of t he
pr oceedi ng. ) ; Or t i z, 91 Hawai i at 191, 981 P. 2d at 1137 ( adopt i ng Wal l er ) .
Under Or t i z and Wal l er , a cour t essent i al l y appl i es t he st andar d set f or t h i n
Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I . Wal l er , 467 U. S. at 48; Or t i z, 91 Hawai i at 191, 981
P. 2d at 1137.


- 52 -

That i s, t he hear i ng shoul d be cl osed onl y i f speci f i c f i ndi ngs
ar e made demonst r at i ng t hat , f i r st , t her e i s a subst ant i al
pr obabi l i t y t hat t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al wi l l be
pr ej udi ced by publ i ci t y t hat cl osur e woul d pr event and, second,
r easonabl e al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e cannot adequat el y pr ot ect t he
def endant s f ai r t r i al r i ght s.
32
I d.
d.
Dur i ng t he second and f i f t h pr oceedi ngs on August 26,
2013, t he ci r cui t cour t cl osed t he cour t r oom.
33
The Par t i al

32
Thi s t est i s si mi l ar t o t hat pr escr i bed by Gannet t Pac. Cor p. ,
t hat i n or der t o cl ose a cour t r oomt he pr esi di ng j udge must f i nd t hat t her e
i s a subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat an open hear i ng . . . woul d i nt er f er e wi t h
t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y. Gannet t Pac.
Cor p. , 59 Haw. 233, 580 P. 2d at 56- 57. See not e 17, supr a. To det er mi ne
whet her a subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y exi t s, t he f act or s f r omGannet t Pac. Cor p.
may be hel pf ul , as adapt ed t o t he par t i cul ar si t uat i on.

I n det er mi ni ng whet her t her e i s such a l i kel i hood, t he
di st r i ct j udge shal l consi der [ 1] t he nat ur e of t he
evi dence sought t o be pr esent ed; [ 2] t he pr obabi l i t y of
such i nf or mat i on r eachi ng pot ent i al j ur or s; [ 3] t he l i kel y
pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t hi s i nf or mat i on upon pr ospect i ve
veni r emen; [ 4] and t he avai l abi l i t y and ef f i cacy of
al t er nat i ve means t o neut r al i ze t he ef f ect of such
di scl osur es.

Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 233- 34, 580 P. 2d 49, 57.

33
We do not addr ess t he f i r st , t hi r d, and f our t h pr oceedi ngs t hat
wer e not open t o t he publ i c because t hose pr oceedi ngs t ook pl ace i n chamber s
or at si debar and i nvol ved quest i ons of pr ocedur e r at her t han t he act ual
quest i oni ng of j ur or s.
The Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has st at ed t hat when engagi ng i n
i nt er changes at t he bench, t he t r i al j udge i s not r equi r ed t o al l ow publ i c or
pr ess i nt r usi on upon t he huddl e. Ri chmond Newspaper s, 448 U. S. at 598 n. 23.
The Amer i can Bar Associ at i on has expr essed t hat t r i al j udges shoul d endeavor
t o keep pr oceedi ngs open t o t he publ i c. The t r i al j udge shoul d mai nt ai n a
pr ef er ence f or l i ve publ i c pr oceedi ngs i n t he cour t r oomwi t h al l par t i es
physi cal l y pr esent . St andar d 6. 18( a) , ABA St andar ds f or Cr i mi nal J ust i ce,
Speci al Funct i ons of t he Tr i al J udge, 3d Ed. ( 2000) . Al t hough l i mi t ed
mat t er s may be conduct ed i n chamber s, publ i c exposur e t o t he cr i mi nal pr ocess


- 53 -

Or der t o Unseal and t he par t i al l y unseal ed t r anscr i pt make cl ear
t hat t he ci r cui t cour t was concer ned wi t h pr ot ect i ng t he
Def endant s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , however , t he
ci r cui t cour t s i nt ent onl y became appar ent f ol l owi ng t he
i ssuance, si x mont hs l at er , of t he Par t i al Or der t o Unseal . At
t he t i me of cl osur e, t her e was no i ndi cat i on t o t he Pet i t i oner s
why t he ci r cui t cour t f el t compel l ed t o cl ose t he cour t r oom. As
t hese t wo pr oceedi ngs occur r ed i n cour t , a qual i f i ed r i ght of
t he publ i c t o access t he pr oceedi ngs ar ose under bot h t he Fi r st
Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on.
Accor di ngl y, t he cour t was obl i gat ed t o make speci f i c f i ndi ngs
ar t i cul at i ng t he over r i di ng i nt er est t hat r equi r ed cl osur e.
Pr ess Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 510. No cont empor aneous
ar t i cul at i on was made by t he ci r cui t cour t ; t her ef or e, t he
pr ocedur es of t he ci r cui t cour t wer e i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ot ect t he
publ i c s Fi r st Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 r i ght s of
access t o cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs.
As t he Par t i al Or der t o Unseal speci f i es t hat t he
compel l i ng i nt er est r el i ed upon by t he ci r cui t cour t was t he
Def endant s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , t he ci r cui t
cour t shoul d have appl i ed t he t est f r omPr ess- Ent er pr i se I I t o

33
bot h f ost er s t he appear ance of f ai r ness and i mpar t i al i t y and f aci l i t at es t he
det er r ent i mpact of t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em. I d. , cmt .


- 54 -

det er mi ne i f cl osur e was war r ant ed.
34
That i s, t he hear i ng
shoul d be cl osed onl y i f speci f i c f i ndi ngs ar e made
demonst r at i ng t hat , f i r st , t her e i s a subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y
t hat t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al wi l l be pr ej udi ced by
publ i ci t y t hat cl osur e woul d pr event and, second, r easonabl e
al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e cannot adequat el y pr ot ect t he
def endant s f ai r t r i al r i ght s. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at
14.
The Par t i al Or der t o Unseal i dent i f i ed sever al
i nt er est s war r ant i ng cl osur e of t he cour t r oom, i ncl udi ng t he
pr i vacy and secur i t y of t he j ur or s and t he i mpor t ance of
pr eser vi ng an i mpar t i al j ur y t o ensur e a f ai r t r i al on behal f of
bot h t he Def endant and t he St at e. Whi l e t hese r easons ar e
i ndi sput abl e i n t he gener i c sense, t hey do not as st at ed pr ovi de
suf f i ci ent j ust i f i cat i on f or a cl osur e of a cour t pr oceedi ng.
35

Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 15 ( The Fi r st Amendment r i ght
of access cannot be over come by t he concl usor y asser t i on t hat
publ i ci t y mi ght depr i ve t he def endant of t hat r i ght . ) ; I n r e
Memphi s Pub. Co. , 887 F. 2d 646, 648 ( 6t h Ci r . 1989) ( hol di ng

34
The t est f r omGannet t Pac. Cor p. may al so have suf f i ci ent l y
pr ot ect ed t he Def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . See not e 32, supr a.

35
We al so not e t hat t he bel at ed i ssuance of t he Par t i al Or der t o
Unseal i s a l ess ef f ect i ve pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c r i ght t han woul d be
cont empor aneous f i ndi ngs. See Wal l er , 467 U. S. at 49 n. 8 ( The post hoc
asser t i on by t he [ cour t ] t hat t he t r i al cour t bal anced t he pet i t i oner s r i ght
t o a publ i c hear i ng . . . cannot sat i sf y t he def i ci enci es i n t he t r i al
cour t s r ecor d. ) .

- 55 -

t hat t he naked asser t i on by t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case
t hat def endant s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al mi ght
wel l be under mi ned, wi t hout any speci f i c f i ndi ng of f act t o
suppor t t hat concl usi on, was i nsuf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y cl osur e) .
The ci r cui t cour t i ndi cat ed i n i t s Par t i al Or der t o
Unseal t hat i t must avoi d exposi ng t he i ndi vi dual j ur or s t o
anyt hi ng t hat may i n any way i mpr oper l y i nf l uence t hei r
cont i nui ng deci si on- maki ng pr ocesses. The or der suggest s t hat
quest i oni ng a j ur or i n f r ont of f r i ends and f ami l y mi ght expose
a j ur or t o pr essur e and mat t er s whi ch ar e not par t of t he
evi dence t o be consi der ed, [ and] al so coul d hamper t he Cour t s
sear ch f or candi d answer s f r omt hat j ur or . I d. Ther ef or e, t he
or der concl udes t hat
i n or der t o pr eser ve a j ur or s pr i vacy and secur i t y and t he
i nt egr i t y of a f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y deci si on based
sol el y upon t he t r i al evi dence and t he l aw pr ovi ded by t he
Cour t , and t o pr ot ect t he r i ght of bot h par t i es t o a f ai r
t r i al and ver di ct , publ i c access woul d not pl ay a
si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e i n t he f unct i oni ng of t hi s
pr ocess.

( Emphasi s added) .
We do not agr ee wi t h t he ci r cui t cour t s st at ement
t hat publ i c access woul d not pl ay a si gni f i cant posi t i ve r ol e
i n t he f unct i oni ng of t hi s pr ocess. As expr essed by t he
Supr eme Cour t s r ecogni t i on of a Fi r st Amendment r i ght of publ i c
access, t he par al l el r i ght of access under ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4
of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on, and our f i r ml y embedded gener al

- 56 -

pol i cy of open pr oceedi ngs, publ i c access al ways has a posi t i ve
r ol e i n t he f unct i oni ng of t he cour t r oompr ocess. Gannet t Pac.
Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 228, 580 P. 2d at 54. However , when mi dt r i al
exami nat i on of j ur or s r ai ses a r i sk t o a def endant s r i ght t o a
f ai r t r i al , t he benef i t s of publ i c access must be bal anced
agai nst t he equal l y wei ght y concer n f or a def endant s f ai r and
i mpar t i al j ur y i n det er mi ni ng whet her t o cl ose t he pr oceedi ngs
t o t he publ i c.
Whi l e we do not deci de whet her t he r i sk of pr ej udi ce
t o t he Def endant s r i ght s t o a f ai r t r i al and an i mpar t i al j ur y
out wei ghed t he publ i c s r i ght of access i n t he pr esent case, we
not e t hat i t may have been hel pf ul f or t he ci r cui t cour t t o have
consi der ed t he f act or s del i neat ed by Gannet t Pac. Cor p. i n
det er mi ni ng whet her t her e was a subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat an
open hear i ng woul d i nt er f er e wi t h t he Def endant s r i ght t o a
f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y. Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at
233, 580 P. 2d at 56; see not e 16, supr a. Speci f i cal l y, t he
ci r cui t cour t may consi der t he nat ur e of t he l i kel y t est i mony
pr ovi ded by i ndi vi dual j ur or s, t he pr obabi l i t y of such
i nf or mat i on r eachi ng t he r emai ni ng j ur or s, and t he l i kel y
pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t hi s i nf or mat i on. I mpor t ant l y, t he cour t
shoul d al ways consi der t he avai l abi l i t y or ef f i cacy of
al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e t hat coul d neut r al i ze t he ef f ect of t he
r each of such pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on. Rat her t han ar t i cul at i ng

- 57 -

gener al i zed st at ement s of pol i cy, a cour t must make f act ual
f i ndi ngs speci f i c t o t he ci r cumst ances t hat i ndi cat e t he
subst ant i al l i kel i hood t hat an open hear i ng woul d i nt er f er e wi t h
t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al by an i mpar t i al j ur y.
2.
The quest i on of access t o a post - t r i al t r anscr i pt of a
cl osed hear i ng i s di st i nct f r omt he quest i on of access t o t he
hear i ng. The t wo ar e not synonymous, f or t he r at i onal e f or
cl osi ng a pr oceedi ng, such as i nf r i ngement of t he def endant s
r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , may have no bear i ng on a deci si on t o seal
f or ever t he cont ent of i n camer a pr oceedi ngs. Phoeni x
Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at 946- 47. I t woul d be an odd r esul t
i ndeed wer e we t o decl ar e t hat our cour t r ooms must be open, but
t hat t r anscr i pt s of t he pr oceedi ngs occur r i ng t her e may be
cl osed, f or what exi st s of t he r i ght of access i f i t ext ends
onl y t o t hose who can squeeze t hr ough t he door ? Uni t ed St at es
v. Ant ar , 38 F. 3d 1348, 1360 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) . At t he hear t of
t he Supr eme Cour t s r i ght of access anal ysi s i s t he convi ct i on
t hat t he publ i c shoul d have access t o i nf or mat i on; t he Cour t
never has suggest ed t hat an open pr oceedi ng i s onl y open t o
t hose who ar e abl e t o be bodi l y pr esent i n t he cour t r oom
i t sel f . I d.

- 58 -

a.
Wi t h r espect t o t he r i ght of access t o j udi ci al
document s under ar t i cl e I , sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on,
t he f i r ml y embedded gener al pol i cy of openness decl ar ed by
Gannet t Pac. Cor p. al so appl i es t o t he t r anscr i pt of cl osed
pr oceedi ngs. [ A] compl et e r ecor d of t hose par t s of t he
pr oceedi ngs cl osed t o t he publ i c shal l be kept and made
avai l abl e t o t he publ i c f or a l egi t i mat e and pr oper pur pose
f ol l owi ng t he compl et i on of t r i al or di sposi t i on of t he case
wi t hout t r i al . Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 235, 580 P. 2d at
57; see al so Takao, 59 Haw. at 242, 580 P. 2d at 63 ( f i ndi ng t hat
no i r r epar abl e har mwas shown because t he t r anscr i pt was t o be
made avai l abl e t o t he publ i c as soon as t he t r i al was
concl uded) . Hi st or i cal l y, post - t r i al t r anscr i pt access has
been gr ant ed as soon as t he f act or s whi ch pr ompt ed hear i ng
cl osur e have been r esol ved. Phoeni x Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at
947. Ther ef or e, under t he exper i ence pr ong of t he Supr eme Cour t
t est , pr ecedent r equi r es t he r el ease of t he t r anscr i pt once any
compet i ng i nt er est s t hat mi l i t at e f or cl osur e of a hear i ng
t r adi t i onal l y open t o t he publ i c ar e no l onger vi abl e.
The same l ogi cal i nt er est s t hat ani mat e t he publ i c s
r i ght of access t o cour t r oompr oceedi ngs al so under l i e t he
benef i t s t hat r esul t f r ompubl i c access t o a t r anscr i pt of
cl osed pr oceedi ngs once t he danger t hat pr eci pi t at ed cl osur e has

- 59 -

passed. Unr easonabl e del ay i n t he r el ease of a t r anscr i pt
f r ust r at es[ s] t he communi t y t her apeut i c val ue of openness.
Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 13. Publ i c access t o a
t r anscr i pt of a cl osed pr oceedi ng al so enhances bot h t he basi c
f ai r ness of t he cr i mi nal t r i al and t he appear ance of f ai r ness so
essent i al t o publ i c conf i dence i n t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em.
Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 508. Fur t her , once t he t r i al i s
compl et ed, a def endant s ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 14 r i ght s t o a f ai r
and i mpar t i al j ur y and publ i c t r i al under t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on ar e t ypi cal l y no l onger concer ns, and consequent l y
t her e woul d be no l ogi cal r eason t o cont i nue t o deny t he r i ght
of access of t he publ i c f or t he pur pose of pr ot ect i ng a
def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al .
Thus, we hol d t hat a qual i f i ed publ i c r i ght of access
t o a t r anscr i pt of a cl osed pr oceedi ng i s pr esent under bot h t he
Fi r st Amendment and ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on, once t he over r i di ng i nt er est s t hat mi l i t at ed f or
cl osur e of t he pr oceedi ng ar e no l onger vi abl e. I ndeed, t he
deni al of t he mot i on t o r el ease t he t r anscr i pt s was i n i t sel f a
deni al of t he r i ght of access pr ot ect ed by t he f i r st amendment .
Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d at 1172. I t must be t est ed by t he same
st andar d and must sat i sf y t he same pr ocedur al pr er equi si t es as
t he i ni t i al cl osur e. I d. Ther ef or e, t he same pr ocedur al and
subst ant i ve pr ot ect i ons t hat must be obser ved by a cour t

- 60 -

consi der i ng cl osur e of cour t r oompr oceedi ngs i n whi ch t he publ i c
has a pot ent i al qual i f i ed r i ght of publ i c access must al so be
obser ved i f a cour t i s cont empl at i ng t o deny access t o t he
t r anscr i pt of t he cl osed pr oceedi ng.
I f publ i c access t o a t r anscr i pt i s t o be deni ed, a
t r i al j udge shoul d expl ai n why t he mat er i al i s ent i t l ed t o
pr i vacy. Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d at 1172. [ I ] f a cour t
cont empl at es seal i ng a document or t r anscr i pt , i t must pr ovi de
suf f i ci ent not i ce t o t he publ i c and pr ess t o af f or d t hemt he
oppor t uni t y t o obj ect or of f er al t er nat i ves. Phoeni x
Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at 951. I f obj ect i ons ar e made, a hear i ng
on t he obj ect i ons must be hel d as soon as possi bl e. Phoeni x
Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at 949. The hear i ng shoul d pr ovi de a
meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o addr ess seal i ng t he t r anscr i pt s on
t he mer i t s, or t o di scuss wi t h t he cour t vi abl e al t er nat i ves.
I d.
Subst ant i vel y, t he t r i al cour t i s r equi r ed t o make
speci f i c f i ndi ngs demonst r at i ng a compel l i ng i nt er est , a
subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y t hat t he compel l i ng i nt er est woul d be
har med, and t her e i s no al t er nat i ve t o cont i nued seal i ng of t he
t r anscr i pt t hat woul d adequat el y pr ot ect t he compel l i ng
i nt er est . I d. at 949. The t r i al cour t may not r el y on
gener al i zed concer ns but must i ndi cat e f act s demonst r at i ng a
compel l i ng i nt er est j ust i f yi ng t he cont i nued seal i ng of t he

- 61 -

hear i ng t r anscr i pt . I d. at 950. Addi t i onal l y, t he cour t must
speci f i cal l y expl ai n t he necessar y connect i on bet ween unseal i ng
t he t r anscr i pt and t he i nf l i ct i on of i r r epar abl e damage
r esul t i ng t o t he compel l i ng i nt er est . I d. ( hol di ng t hat t he
r ef usal t o unseal t he t r anscr i pt was i n er r or , as t he cour t di d
not expl ai n t he r equi r ed connect i on bet ween unseal i ng t he
t r anscr i pt and i r r epar abl e damage t o t he compel l i ng i nt er est ) .
Fur t her , onl y access t o t hose par t s of t r anscr i pt
r easonabl y ent i t l ed t o pr i vacy shoul d be deni ed. Pr ess-
Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 513. Ther ef or e, t he t r i al j udge
shoul d seal [ ] such par t s of t he t r anscr i pt as necessar y t o
pr eser ve t he anonymi t y of t he i ndi vi dual s sought t o be
pr ot ect ed. I d.
b.
I n t he pr esent case, t he ci r cui t cour t di d not
adequat el y pr ot ect t he publ i c s r i ght of access t o t he
t r anscr i pt of t he cl osed pr oceedi ngs as guar ant eed by ar t i cl e I ,
sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on. The t r anscr i pt of t he
August 26, 2013 pr oceedi ngs was seal ed and publ i c access was
deni ed unt i l Febr uar y 24, 2014, some si x mont hs af t er t he
mi st r i al was decl ar ed. Based on t he br evi t y of t he quest i oni ng
of t he j ur or i n t he second and f i f t h pr oceedi ngs and t he f act
t hat t he cour t al l owed t he j ur or t o cont i nue del i ber at i ng, t he
ci r cui t cour t was appar ent l y convi nced t hat t he handshake at

- 62 -

i ssue di d not pr esent a ser i ous r i sk of a bi ased j ur y or r ai se
subst ant i al i ssues of j ur or mi sconduct . Ther ef or e, t he
t r anscr i pt of t he cl osed pr oceedi ngs shoul d have been unseal ed
as soon as pr act i cabl e once t he cour t al l owed t he j ur or s t o
r esume del i ber at i ons, wi t h appr opr i at e r edact i on of any
i nappr opr i at e st at ement about t he subj ect mat t er of t he
del i ber at i ons and per sonal i dent i f i er s of t he i nvol ved j ur or s.
Fur t her , at t he cl ose of t he pr oceedi ngs on August 26,
2013, t he j ur y r epor t ed t hat t hey wer e deadl ocked and t he
ci r cui t cour t decl ar ed a mi st r i al . Thus, any pot ent i al har mof
i nt r usi on i nt o j ur y del i ber at i ons as a r esul t of t he cour t s
i nvest i gat i on had cl ear l y passed when t he mi st r i al was decl ar ed,
agai n mi l i t at i ng f or t he i mmedi at e r el ease of t he t r anscr i pt .
J ur or pr i vacy was never at r i sk by t he r el ease of t he
t r anscr i pt . As t he unseal ed t r anscr i pt demonst r at es, r edact i ng
per sonal i dent i f i er s or r epl aci ng any i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on
wi t h a j ur or - number gener al l y st r i kes t he qui nt essent i al bal ance
bet ween pr eser vi ng j ur or pr i vacy and al l owi ng publ i c access t o
r evi ew t r i al pr oceedi ngs f or f ai r ness and i mpar t i al i t y.
Ther ef or e, under t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t he t r anscr i pt
of t he cl osed pr oceedi ng shoul d not have r emai ned seal ed on t he
basi s of pr ot ect i ng j ur or pr i vacy or secur i t y.
I n denyi ng publ i c access t o t he t r anscr i pt , t he
ci r cui t cour t di d not appl y t he same pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve

- 63 -

r equi r ement s as woul d be r equi r ed t o cl ose a cour t r oom. The
ci r cui t cour t was r equi r ed t o pr ovi de not i ce r egar di ng i t s
i nt ent i on t o deny access t o t he t r anscr i pt and t o hol d a hear i ng
al l owi ng obj ect i ons and al t er nat i ves t o be pr esent ed i f any
per son wi shed t o be hear d. The ci r cui t cour t was f ur t her
r equi r ed t o make speci f i c f i ndi ngs on t he r ecor d: ( 1)
i dent i f yi ng t he compel l i ng i nt er est t hat woul d be har med by
publ i c access t o t he t r anscr i pt , ( 2) demonst r at i ng t hat a
subst ant i al r i sk of har mt o t he compel l i ng i nt er est woul d occur
due t o publ i c access t o t he t r anscr i pt , and ( 3) i dent i f yi ng any
al t er nat i ves t o deni al of publ i c access t hat t he cour t
consi der ed but f ound i nsuf f i ci ent l y pr ot ect i ve.
Accor di ngl y, t he publ i c s qual i f i ed r i ght of access t o
t he t r anscr i pt of t he f i ve pr oceedi ngs on August 26, 2013, was
not adequat el y pr ot ect ed at t he t i me t he ci r cui t cour t seal ed
t he t r anscr i pt because t he ci r cui t cour t di d not obser ve t he
pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve st eps necessar y t o ensur e publ i c
access was adequat el y consi der ed i n accor dance wi t h
const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s. Fur t her , t he ci r cui t cour t
i mpr oper l y cont i nued t o deny access t o t hi s t r anscr i pt when t he
pot ent i al r i sk of har mt o any compel l i ng i nt er est s t hat had
pr eci pi t at ed cl osur e had passed.

- 64 -

IV. Conclusion
The wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on i s di smi ssed as moot because
t he ci r cui t cour t has al r eady unseal ed t he t r anscr i pt of t he
cl osed pr oceedi ngs of August 26, 2013, except f or appr opr i at e
r edact i ons as t o j ur or i dent i f i cat i on. The wr i t of mandamus i s
deni ed as unnecessar y i n l i ght of t he di r ect i ve of t hi s opi ni on.
I n summar y, ar t i cl e 1, sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i
Const i t ut i on pr ovi des t he publ i c a qual i f i ed r i ght of access t o
obser ve cour t pr oceedi ngs of cr i mi nal t r i al s. I n keepi ng wi t h
our f i r ml y embedded pol i cy of open t r i al s, t he ci r cui t cour t ,
and al l Hawai i cour t s conduct i ng cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng
adul t def endant s, ar e di r ect ed t o r ef r ai n f r omcl osi ng t r i al
pr oceedi ngs t hat ar e pr esumpt i vel y open t o t he publ i c.
36
The
pr esumpt i on of openness may be over come onl y by an over r i di ng
i nt er est . The cour t must set f or t h speci f i c f i ndi ngs
demonst r at i ng t he cl osur e i s essent i al t o pr eser ve t he
over r i di ng i nt er est , and t he cl osur e i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o
ser ve t hat i nt er est . Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I , 464 U. S. at 510.
Addi t i onal l y, publ i c access t o a t r anscr i pt of a
cl osed pr oceedi ng must be gi ven t he same pr ot ect i ons as a
cour t r oompr oceedi ng. Br ookl i er , 685 F. 2d at 1172. A

36
As not ed, see not e 17, supr a, t he r easons under l yi ng openness i n
t he cr i mi nal cont ext , as enunci at ed i n [ Gannet t Pac. Cor p. ] , ar e equal l y
compel l i ng i n t he ci vi l cont ext . Campbel l , 106 Hawai i at 462, 106 P. 3d at
1105.


- 65 -

t r anscr i pt of t hose par t s of t he pr oceedi ngs cl osed t o t he
publ i c must be made avai l abl e t o t he publ i c once t he danger t o
t he compel l i ng i nt er est has passed. Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw.
at 235, 580 P. 2d at 57; Takao, 59 Haw. at 242, 580 P. 2d at 63;
Phoeni x Newspaper s, 156 F. 3d at 947- 48.
However , a def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r and i mpar t i al
j ur y i s a compel l i ng i nt er est t hat may out wei gh t he gener al
pol i cy of openness and publ i c access guar ant eed by ar t i cl e 1,
sect i on 4 of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on. A def endant s r i ght t o a
f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur y may be i mpl i cat ed i f t he cour t i s
consi der i ng conduct i ng mi dt r i al quest i oni ng of j ur or s i n or der
t o i nvest i gat e pot ent i al mi sconduct . I n such a si t uat i on, t he
r esponsi bi l i t y of t he cour t i s t o make speci f i c f i ndi ngs . . .
demonst r at i ng t hat , f i r st , t her e i s a subst ant i al pr obabi l i t y
t hat t he def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al wi l l be pr ej udi ced by
publ i ci t y t hat cl osur e woul d pr event and, second, r easonabl e
al t er nat i ves t o cl osur e cannot adequat el y pr ot ect t he
def endant s f ai r t r i al r i ght s. Pr ess- Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at
14. I n det er mi ni ng whet her t her e i s such a subst ant i al
pr obabi l i t y, t he j udge may consi der : t he nat ur e of t he l i kel y
r i sk t o t he def endant s r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y; t he
pr obabi l i t y of such r i sk i mpact i ng t he j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y; t he
l i kel y pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t he r i sk; and, t he avai l abi l i t y and
ef f i cacy of al t er nat i ve means t o neut r al i ze t he ef f ect of t he

- 66 -

r each of such r i sk. Gannet t Pac. Cor p. , 59 Haw. at 233- 34, 580
P. 2d at 57.

J ef f er y S. Por t noy and
J ohn P. Duchemi n
f or pet i t i oner s

Robyn Chun and
Char l een M. Ai na
f or r espondent j udge

J ani ce T. Fut a,
Br ook Har t ,
Mar gar et C. Nammar , and
Thomas M. Ot ake
f or r espondent s

Rober t Br i an Bl ack
f or ami ci

/ s/ Mar k E. Reckt enwal d
/ s/ Paul a A. Nakayama
/ s/ Ri char d W. Pol l ack
/ s/ Rober t M. Br owni ng
/ s/ Edwar d H. Kubo

Supreme Court Ruling Oahu Publications v. The Honorable Karen Anh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Ruling Oahu Publications v. The Honorable Karen Anh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOR PUBLICATION IN WESTS HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

You might also like