## Facts

- A newspaper publisher sought public and press access to jury selection in a California criminal trial involving rape and murder charges.
- The trial court permitted attendance at general questioning but closed nearly all individual voir dire, leaving most of a six-week jury selection conducted in closed session.
- After the jury was empaneled, the publisher requested release of the full voir dire transcript.
- The prosecutor and defense opposed release, citing juror candor and privacy concerns.
- The trial court denied transcript access both before and after the defendant’s conviction and death sentence.
- State appellate courts denied extraordinary relief, and the publisher sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment right of public access to criminal proceedings extends to voir dire examination of prospective jurors.
2. What standard governs closing voir dire and withholding voir dire transcripts from the public and press.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state court judgment.
- The Court held that the First Amendment guarantees of open criminal proceedings apply to voir dire.
- Closure of voir dire (and denial of related transcripts) is permissible only upon a showing of an overriding interest, supported by specific findings, and only when the restriction is narrowly tailored.
- The trial court’s broad closure and complete transcript denial were unsupported by adequate, case-specific findings and therefore violated the First Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Voir dire is a stage of a criminal trial to which a constitutional presumption of openness applies.
- In assessing whether access attaches, courts consider (1) whether the proceeding has historically been open and (2) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the proceeding’s function.
- The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest, based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
- Courts must make specific, on-the-record findings sufficient for review and must consider less restrictive alternatives (e.g., limited closure for sensitive questioning, redaction, or partial sealing) before ordering broad closure.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that jury selection must generally be open to the public and press, and that any closure or withholding of voir dire transcripts requires an overriding interest supported by specific findings and a narrowly tailored order.


Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501 (1984)