## Facts

- Steven B. Pennell was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in a case that received extensive publicity.
- The Superior Court entered a pretrial order directing the Prothonotary to keep confidential the names of all prospective jurors for Pennell’s trial.
- The order was based on concerns about juror harassment and trial integrity, including the court’s reliance on prior juror-focused media coverage by Gannett in another notorious murder trial.
- The jury was not sequestered; the courtroom proceedings otherwise remained open, and the parties had full access to juror-identifying information.
- Gannett Co., publisher of a statewide newspaper, intervened and moved to vacate the confidentiality order, asserting federal and state constitutional access rights.
- The Superior Court denied the motion, and Gannett pursued an expedited interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment (and the Delaware Constitution) gives the press a qualified right of access that requires public disclosure or announcement of jurors’ names during a highly publicized murder trial when proceedings are open and the parties have full juror information.
2. Whether the confidentiality order violated due process by denying the press an adequate hearing and opportunity to be heard.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the confidentiality order.
- The court held the press had no First Amendment right that compelled disclosure of juror names under these circumstances.
- The court concluded the limited restriction was justified by concerns for juror protection and the fair administration of justice, given the publicity and prior juror-targeted coverage.
- The court rejected the due process challenge, finding Gannett had notice and an opportunity to be heard and that the trial court stated reasons supporting the order.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal proceedings are presumptively open, but the constitutional right of access is qualified and may yield to countervailing interests such as fair-trial protections and juror safety and impartiality.
- The right of access to proceedings does not automatically include a right to all information associated with a trial; juror names may be withheld when disclosure poses a substantial risk to the administration of justice.
- A court may maintain juror anonymity through a targeted, narrowly tailored confidentiality measure when proceedings remain open and the parties retain full access needed to exercise jury-selection rights.
- Due process in access disputes requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; an order supported by articulated reasons and subject to appellate review satisfies procedural requirements.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld a narrowly limited juror-name confidentiality order in a highly publicized murder prosecution, ruling that the press could attend and report on the open proceedings but could not compel disclosure of juror identities, and that the procedures used to impose and maintain the order did not violate due process.


Gannett Co. v. State, 571 A.2d 735 (Del. 1990)