***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

***

















I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻI

- - - o0o- - -


OAHU PUBLI CATI ONS I NC. , dba The Honol ul u St ar - Adver t i ser ,
a Hawai ʻi cor por at i on, and KHNL/ KGMB, LLC, dba Hawai ʻi
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 ʻI 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 Hoohi 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 Hoohi 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 Hoohi 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 .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi Publ i c Radi o; St ephens Medi a LLC, dba
Hawai ʻi Tr i bune- Her al d and dba West Hawai ʻi Today; Maui Ti me
Pr oduct i ons, I nc. , dba Maui Ti me Weekl y; Hawai ʻi Repor t er , I nc. ;
Hawai ʻi 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 ʻi ; 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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. ”
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi , 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 ʻi 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. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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. ”

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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:
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 172, 181, 873 P. 2d 51, 60
( 1994) .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 on—whet 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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. ”
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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 ʻi 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
( cont i nued. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
( . . . cont i nued)
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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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,
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi
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 ʻi 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 ʻi 73, 84, 170 P. 3d 324, 335 ( 2007) .
“Ef f ect i vel y, t he l anguage of f eder al and Hawai ʻi 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 ʻi 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 ʻi 332, 340 n. 9, 876 P. 2d 1300 n. 9
( 1994) , St at e v. Rodr i gues, 128 Hawai ʻi 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi ’ 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 ʻi :
The Cul t ur al Power of Law 70 ( 2000) . Queen Li l i ʻuokal 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 ʻi ’ s St or y by Hawai ʻi ’ 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 ʻuokal ani , i n Tr i al of a Queen: 1895
Mi l i t ar y Tr i bunal ( Hawai ʻi 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 ʻi . ” Sal l y Engl e
Mer r y, Col oni zi ng Hawai ʻi : The Cul t ur al Power of Law 55 ( 2000) . “Al i ʻi ” 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 ʻuokal 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 .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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. ”
( cont i nued. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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 ʻi . 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 ʻi 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
( . . . cont i nued)
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 ʻi 453, 462, 106 P. 3d 1096, 1105
( 2005) .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi ( 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) .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ess–Ent er pr i se I I , 478 U. S. at 13–14) .
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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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 ʻi 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 ʻi 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 ʻi 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
( cont i nued. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi
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 ʻi 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
( . . . cont i nued)
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 ʻi 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 ʻi 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 40 -

no Hawai ʻi 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 ʻi 59, 314 P. 3d 849 ( App. 2013) ; St at e
v. Keohokapu, 127 Hawai ʻi 91, 95, 276 P. 3d 660, 664 ( 2012) ; St at e v. Mar k, 120
Hawai ʻi 499, 521, 210 P. 3d 22, 44 ( App. 2009) ; St at e v. Paul i ne, 100 Hawai ʻi
356, 369, 60 P. 3d 306, 319 ( 2002) ; Or t i z, 91 Hawai ʻi 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi , 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
( cont i nued. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
( . . . cont i nued)
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 .

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi ’ 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 ʻi ’ 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 . ,
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 enge—t 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 on”—r 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) .

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi
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 ʻi
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 ess–Ent 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 ʻi 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 ʻi at 191, 981
P. 2d at 1137.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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

( cont i nued. . . )
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
( . . . cont i nued)
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 .

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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. ”) .
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi Const i t ut i on, and our f i r ml y embedded gener al
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi
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 ʻi
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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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.
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi
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 ʻi 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 ʻi at 462, 106 P. 3d at
1105.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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 ʻi 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
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***


- 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful