## Facts

- David Lawson, a North Carolina death-row inmate, provided the prison warden with a list of requested execution witnesses that included two prominent media figures.
- Lawson and the media figures sought permission for the media figures to attend the execution and to videotape it for a documentary.
- Prison officials, including Warden Gary Dixon, denied the request, citing prison security and the orderly operation of the facility.
- Lawson and the media figures sued in North Carolina state court, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the North Carolina Constitution.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected the claims on the merits, concluding there was no constitutional right to videotape the execution.
- Plaintiffs then filed a federal action asserting essentially the same federal constitutional claims.
- The federal district court dismissed, holding (1) no federal constitutional right existed to videotape the execution or require the attendance of particular media witnesses, and (2) the state-court judgment precluded the federal suit.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments give a condemned prisoner and identified media figures a right to require (a) attendance by particular named media members at an execution and (b) videotaping of the execution for a documentary.
2. Whether claim and/or issue preclusion based on a final state-court merits judgment bars relitigation of the same constitutional claims in federal court.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
- The court held plaintiffs had no constitutional right to videotape the execution or to insist on particular media witnesses.
- The court held the prior state-court judgment on the merits barred the federal action under preclusion principles.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment does not grant the press greater access than the general public, nor does it require government to provide access or information beyond what is generally available.
- Restrictions on access to prison facilities and execution procedures may be upheld when justified by institutional security and orderly administration.
- Federal courts must give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they would receive in state court; a final merits decision can bar subsequent federal litigation between the same parties on the same claims or issues (including through res judicata and collateral estoppel).

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld prison officials’ refusal to allow videotaping of an execution or the attendance of specific requested media witnesses, and it ruled that a prior state supreme court decision rejecting the same constitutional claims precluded a second suit in federal court.


Lawson v. Dixon, 25 F.3d 1040 (4th Cir. 1994)