Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Media Companies Ask Judge to Unseal Zimmerman Records

Media Companies Ask Judge to Unseal Zimmerman Records

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,276 |Likes:
Published by FindLaw
A group of media companies has filed a motion asking the judge presiding over the trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Marting to vacate an earlier order that sealed the judicial and public records in the case. The companies argue that the defendant failed to show that the closure of the records was necessary to prevent a "serious and imminent" threat to the administration of justice.
A group of media companies has filed a motion asking the judge presiding over the trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Marting to vacate an earlier order that sealed the judicial and public records in the case. The companies argue that the defendant failed to show that the closure of the records was necessary to prevent a "serious and imminent" threat to the administration of justice.

More info:

Published by: FindLaw on Apr 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

10/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF
THE
18TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN
AND FORSEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDACASE NO. 5920l2CF001083ASTATE OF FLORIDAvs.GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ / 
MEDIA COMPANIES'
MOTION TO INTERVENE,TO
VACATE
CLOSURE ORDER,
AND
TO
UNSEAL
JUDICIAL
AND
PUBLIC RECORDS
The McClatchy Company, publisher
of
The
Miami Herald
and
The
Bradenton Herald;
Times Publishing Company, publisher
of
The
Tampa Bay
Times;
Cable News Network, Inc.;Associated Press; The E.W. Scripps Company, publisher
of
Naples Daily News, Stuart
News,
Ft.
Pierce Tribune,
and
Vero
Beach Press Journal,
and owner
of
WPTV-TV and WFTS-TV;Gannett Co., Inc., publisher
of
USA
TODAY,
The
News-Press, Pensacola News Journal,FLORIDA TODAY,
The
Tallahassee Democrat,
and owner
of
First Coast News and WTSP-TV;New York Times Company, publisher.
of
The
New York Times;
Morris Publishing Group, LLC,d/b/a
The
Florida Times-Union;
NBCUniversai Media LLC; and The First AmendmentFoundation (collectively, the "Media Companies"), move
to
intervene in these proceedings forthe limited purpose
of
opposing the closure
of
judicial and public records, and move for the entry
of
an Order vacating the existing closure order and unsealing the judicial and public records thatwere improperly sealed. The records should be unsealed for the following reasons:
 
1.
The
Media
Companies Have
Standing
To Intervene
For
The.
Purpose
Of
OpposingClosure.The Court has sealed various records, including records that have been or will be filedwith the Clerk and/or provided to Defendant through discovery.
1
The Media Companies publishand broadcast news throughout Florida, and thus have standing to challenge and oppose anyattempt to seal records, and to petition for records to be unsealed.
See,
e.g.,
Barron
v.
FloridaFreedom Newspapers, Inc.,
531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988).2.
Defendant Has
Failed To
Establish
That
Sealing Is
Warranted.
At a hearing on April 12, 2012, Defendant asked the Court to seal materials that weresoon to be filed with the Clerk and/or provided to Defendant as discovery. The State indicatedthat it did not oppose Defendant's request. Based on the lack
of
opposition from the State -andwithout receiving evidence on the issue
of
closure or requiring the presentation
of
any evidence,without reviewing the records, and without giving the public and press an opportunity to opposeclosure -the Court sealed the records. The closure order and the manner in which it was enteredare contrary to law.In
Florida Freedom Newspapers,
Inc.
v.
McCrary,
520 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1988), theFlorida Supreme Court held that in order to seal records (as requested by Defendant), the partyseeking closure bears the burden
of
satisfying the three-prong test set out in
Miami HeraldPublishing
Co.
v.
Lewis,
426 So.2d 1 (1983).
Lewis,
in tum, provides that closure is warranted
only
where the party seeking closure establishes:
1.
Closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to theadministration
of
ustice;
1
Once discovery materials are provided to the person arrested, they become public records.
See
§119.0ll(3)(c)(5), Florida Statutes.2
 
2.
No alternatives are available, other than a change
of
venue, whichwould protect a defendant's right to a fair trial; and
3.
Closure would be effective in protecting the rights
of
the accused,without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose.
See Lewis,
426 So.2d at
6;
see also
Rule 2.420
of
the Florida Rules
of
Judicial Administration(incorporating
Lewis
test);
Globe Newspaper
Co.
v.
Pokaski,
868
F.2d 497, 502
(lst
Cir. 1989)(collecting decisions addressing First Amendment and common law right
of
access to recordsfiled in criminal proceedings);
United States
v.
Blagojevich,
662 F.Supp.2d 998, 1003-04 (N.D.
Ill.
2009) (same);
Newman
v.
Graddick,
696 F.2d 796,802-03
(lIth
Cir. 1983) (same). In'order
to
satisfy the burden
of
the
Lewis
test, the party seeking closure must
do
more than offer theargument
of
counsel; the proponent
of
closure must come forward with evidence on which theCourt can make findings
offact
supporting closure.
See Lewis,
426 So.2d at 7-8.In requesting that the records be sealed, Defendant did not address any
of
those prongs,much less present any evidence establishing that any
of
the prongs are satisfied. In orderingclosure, the Court did not address any
of
those prongs, or make any findings
of
fact orconclusions
of
law explaining how or why the prongs,
as
applied to evidence, warranted closure.Indeed, because Defendant did not present any evidence, it was not possible for the Court
to
make the requisite findings. This, alone, requires that the closure order be vacated and therecords unsealed.
See,
e.g.,
WESH Television
v.
Freeman,
691
So.2d 532, 534-35 (Fla. 5th DCA1997) (citing and quoting
McCrary,
520 So.2d at 35;
Lewis,
426 So.2d
1):
The three-pronged test contemplates an evidentiary hearing. At thehearing, the party seeking closure has the burden
of
proving by the greaterweight
of
the evidence that closure is necessary to prevent a serious andimminent to the administration
of
justice.
*
**
3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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