March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Arizona Court of Appeals Declares Trial Court's Media Restrictions Unconstitutional

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion late last month reaffirming the strict requirements for limiting the media's ability to disseminate public information and strongly cautioning trial courts against imposing prior restraints in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The case arose as a result of the high-profile capital murder trial of John Michael Allen, who was charged in the death of a 10-year-old girl. Coincidentally, concurrent with that trial, the lead prosecutor, Jeannette Gallagher, appeared and testified as an alleged victim in the unrelated stalking trial of Albert Karl Heitzmann. The two trials took place in neighboring courthouses in downtown Phoenix.

After The Arizona Republic requested placement of a still camera in the courtroom at the Allen murder trial, Ms. Gallagher argued for prohibiting media coverage, claiming that she did not "want to see it affect [the Heitzmann] jury and have me as a victim have to go through that trial again." One week later, during a hearing on The Republic's camera coverage request in the Allen case, Arizona Superior Court Judge Erin Otis issued an order barring the media from publishing Ms. Gallagher's name and likeness until the conclusion of the Heitzmann stalking trial.

Several news organizations—Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (The Arizona Republic), Meredith Corporation (KPHO-TV and KTVK-3TV), KPNX-TV Channel 12 and The Associated Press—sought "special action" review of the trial court's order by the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that there would be no adequate remedy on appeal and that the case raised issues of statewide constitutional importance. After briefing and oral argument, the court accepted jurisdiction, rejected the State's argument that the case was moot and found instead that the issues raised were "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

Citing the three-factor test articulated in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976), the court evaluated and rejected the alleged justifications for the trial court's order. Regarding the first factor, the Court of Appeals concluded that although the State has an interest in protecting the sanctity of criminal proceedings, the alleged harm was too speculative to satisfy the rigorous constitutional requirements. Next, the court found that the trial court had failed to consider less-restrictive alternatives before imposing an outright ban on the dissemination of Ms. Gallagher's name and likeness. Finally, the court found that the prior restraint was ultimately ineffective because the case was already a matter of public interest, and Ms. Gallagher's name had been widely published in news accounts of the Allen trial. Accordingly, the court held that the prior restraint was "likely unnecessary and ineffective, and it infringed the media's right to truthfully disseminate public judicial records that already identified the prosecutor."

For these reasons, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's order constituted "an impermissible prior restraint on the media’s constitutional right to cover the Allen trial." It also criticized the lower court for not "memorializ[ing] its findings," including weighing the rights of defendants, the press, and any victims.

Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

David J. Bodney, Partner, Ballard
Partner

David J. Bodney, a litigator focusing on media and constitutional law, is Co-Practice Leader of the firm's Media and Entertainment Law Group. David has defended print, broadcast, and electronic media in defamation, privacy, and related First Amendment litigation. In addition, he has significant experience litigating complex commercial disputes; handling matters involving intellectual property, American Indian law, and governmental affairs issues; and briefing several high-profile cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.

David 's practice covers a range...

602.798.5454
Chase Bales,Associate
Associate

Chase Bales is a litigator focusing his practice on media, constitutional, and election law. He represents media organizations and individuals in defamation, privacy, and First Amendment litigation, including actions to safeguard the public's access to court proceedings and government records. He also represents and counsels clients in campaign finance, election, and government relations matters. Chase has represented candidates and political committees at all levels of the political spectrum, including one for President of the United States. In addition, he is involved in the legislative process, representing clients' interests before the Arizona Legislature.

Chase also practices commercial litigation, including contract disputes, regulatory matters, and tax controversy. Additionally, he practices Indian law and represents a local tribe in criminal, civil, and social services proceedings. In all areas of his practice, he has extensive appellate experience in both state and federal courts.

Judicial Clerkships

Hon. Michael J. Brown, Arizona Court of Appeals

He specializes in: 

  • Litigation. 
  • Political. 
  • Election Law. 
  • Government Relations. 
  • Regulatory.
  • Entertainment. 
  • Media Law. 
602-798-5521