Jurisdictional Statement — Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome

CG ; Supreme Court, u. &.

4y»~ * cP : ~_, F j L ti D ~

Supreme Court of the United States” |

Pain peta tte Memepepans San, Sho Auvecksted Roam, Cutel Sates Belting,

a of a Ten ed Teckel

Journalists, gma Delta Chi, Greater Greater Philadelphia Chapter, Appellants,

0.

The Honorable Domenic D. Jerome, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of

Delaware Cvunty, Pennsylvania

and

Equitable Conoeny, Tee, | The Society of Professional Journalists,

S Delta Chapter, The Pennsylvania N

paper Pobliher Asvocition and mat Pe <a sais Boulity of Mowananes

Appellants,

The Honorable Lawrence A. ss of the Court of Common Pleas of

mer tse foe ws

and

Montgomery Publishing Company, Appellant,

0.

The Honorable Lawrence A. Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of

(A ay Tf A

and

Equitable Publis Company, Inc., The Society of Professional Journalists,

Sigma Delta Chi, Greater Philadelphia Chapter, The Pennsylvania N

Se aS Soe et Re eee ae a ee

v Appeilants,

The Honorable Robert W. Honeyman, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas

of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

and

Montgomery Publishing Company, Appellant,

v.

The Honorable Robert W. Honeyman, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas

of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Appeal From the Judgments of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT.

Of Counsel: Davip H. Manion,

Arruur E. Newso p, IV, SaMuEL E. Kier,

Decuert, Price & Rxoaps, Konn, Savett, Manion & Grar, P. C.,

3400 Centre Square West, 1214 IVB Building,

1500 Market Street, 1700 Market Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 19102 (315) hia, a, Pennsylvania. 19103

Roserta S. Sr.

mae. I Barmy 8, Attorneys for ee

The Fidelity Building,

123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, ten 19109

International Printing Co., 711 So. 50th St., Phila., Pa. 19143 — Tel. (215) 727-8711

"

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

TABLE OF CITATIONS.

Cases: Page

Beck v. Washington, 369 U. S. 541 (1962) .............4.. 16

Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906 (D. Haw. 1974) ......... 19

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972) ................ 18

CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F. 2d 234 (6th Cir. 1975) .......... 19

Charlottesville Newspapers, Inc. v. Berry, 215 Va. 116, 206

Di ae Re CHEE 4.5 bes cdccnebactvcessoneesessccas 19

Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bower, 522 F. 2d 242 (7th Cir.

TEUEED bacdccudescedaccedaccddcabapibacodseedioceuene 19

Citizen Publishing Company v. Buchanan, 22 Ariz. App. 521

RIESE GG Me at 0 16

Commonwealth v. Boyle, 386 A. 2d 661 (Pa. 1977) ....... 7, 15, 19

Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975) ........ 13

Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947) .............ceeeeee 14

Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, reh. denied 382 U. S. 875

(ZREED :o0ccveccensesneebaneecbéodeceduesansasennne 14

E. W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton, 100 Ohio App. 157, 125 N. E. 2d

896 (1955), appeal dismissed as moot, 164 Ohio 261, 130

DE, TE BS FES CI Ge TE ccccccccccccccevescocccs 16

Forcade v. Knight, 416 F. Supp. 1025 (D. D. C. 1976) ...... 19

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, — N. Y. S. 2d — (New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division (1976)) ........... 15

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974) .......... 17

Hearst v. Cholakes, — N. Y. S. 2d — (New York Supreme

Court, Appellate Division (1976)) ...............000. 15

In Re Oliver, 333 U. §. 257 (1048) .......cccccccccccccces 14

In Re Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation, 405 F. Supp.

BD CUP. i BI Bee 4 6 sivicesasecevewcevvccs coancess 19

In Re Washington Post Company, et al. v. United States,

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 76-1695 ... 19

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682 (1972) ..........ceceeeeees 14

Kirtowsty v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745, 300 P. 2d

BOD CER, Ai TEE 0 oc dbisncsccpissccsscasccccesens 16

Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 321 (1965) ....... 18

eee

TABLE OF CITATIONS (Continued).

Cases (Continued): Page

Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F. 2d 791 (4th Cir. 1965) ............ 15

Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975) .................. 16

Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539 (1976) ....12, 16, 20

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) ...... 17

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)... 17

Oliver v. Postel, 30 N. Y. S. 2d 171, 331 N. Y. S. 2d 207

SRO 63s Wks seinceagadedks ant dbinsevetevededeseses 16

Oxnard Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. Rptr. 83

See ME ME 050 bbb udenwwesoeardbous beentdeansde 16

Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974) ..............000ee 20

People v. Hinton, 31 N. Y. 2d 71, 334 N. Y. S. 2d 885, 286

N. E. 2d 265 (1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 911 (1973)... 16

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557, 490 P. 2d

ee SEED wauh0 we dwewesseuaddecduntet b4cesesideves 16

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 101 Ariz. 257,

Sp ee ED End ce wsnesscwndcadusenstadactes 16

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 (1969) ... 18

Saxbe v. The Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974) .... 20

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966) ................ 14

Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24 (1965) ............... 16

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969) .................. 18

State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers v. Phillips, 460 Ohio St. 2d

8 FRR ff er er Taree 15

State ex rel. Gore Newspaper Company v. Tyson, 313 So. 2d

Fee Crk Bi Ge es SD ho xd Sawes cccccticdsccese 16

Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181 (1952) ................ 16

Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S.

BE CIID Si vide kccceiedibsdsdisNsiivdeisies 17

United States ex rel. Bennett v. Rundle, 419 F. 2d 599 (3d

Gi: BEE) Fae WDD cbc stds eecedsnceddeccdiasiscdes 14

United States ex rel. Lloyd v. Vincent, 520 F. 2d 1272 (2d

Cir. ), cert. denied 423 U. S. 937 (1975) ............... 15

United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Yeager, 321 F. Supp. 199

COD, BE. Bs GERD hd rdnccvesscncccenesencetsecedesece 15

TABLE OF CITATIONS (Continued).

Cases (Continued): Page

United States v. Clark, 475 F. 2d 240 (2d Cir. 1973) ....... 14

United States v. Kobli, 172 F. 2d 919 (3d Cir. 1949) ........ 15

United States v. Sorrentino, 175 F. 2d 721 (3d Cir.), cert.

denied 338 U. S. 868, reh. denied 338 U. S. 896 (1949) 15

Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. Dukakis, 409

eo I Gee? Ce EE ED cece cecccescccesevccees 19

Constitutional Provisions—United States:

TE ee ML oe ie nce epe ene pees Passim

he a cee cee peneses Passim

EE i a OR ds as canesee eee ots Passim

i a ea ee seaeesee Passim

Constitutional Provisions—Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania:

Article V, §10 ....... OST SS a 2

Statutes—United States:

ae I 2

Ce ee 5

Statutes—Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, 17 Pa. S.

Ts cece ges 5

Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Rule 323, 19 Pa. S. (1977 Rules Supp.) ............... 3, 6, 18, 19

Rule 326, 19 Pa. S. (1977 Rules Supp.) ................0+: 5

Other Authorities:

9 Writings of James Madison (G. Hurst Ed. 1910) ......... 18

Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government

DED dvchdeddanbusenhSeebseesecesore vevececvecess 18

REFERENCE TO OPINIONS BELOW.

The Court below rendered no opinions.

The Judgments sought to be reviewed were entered

by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Appellants were

advised by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that it had

endorsed upon their Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and

Prohibition the following Orders:

“Denied

s/ By the Court”

Letters from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to Appel-

lants giving notice of entry of the aforesaid Orders are

appended hereto as Exhibits 1 through 5.

—

—

Jurisdictional Statement

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR

JURISDICTION.

This Court has jurisdiction over these appeals, pursu-

ant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2) in that these appeals are taken

from Orders of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania up-

holding the validity of Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal

Procedure against claims of repugnancy to the Constitu-

tion of the United States, specifically, the First, Fifth,

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments thereto. The Pennsyl-

vania Rules of Criminal Procedure are the equivalent of

statutory enactments by the Legislature, have the force

and effect of law, and all laws inconsistent with the Rules

are deemed suspended. Constitution of the Common-

wealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 10(c).

The proceedings below were brought to gain access

by the press and public to pretrial suppression hearings in

three separate criminal proceedings. In Philadelphia

Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. The Honorable Domenic D.

Jerome, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on March 23,

1977 denied Petitions seeking vacation of the trial court's

orders closing pretrial hearings and sealing and impound-

ing all papers, documents and records filed in the case of

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. W. A. “Tony” Boyle,

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsyl-

vania, Nos. 650A, 650B and 650C. Similar orders were

entered on June 20, 1977 in Equitable Publishing Com-

pany, et al. v. The Honorable Robert W. Honeyman;

Montgomery Publishing Company v. The Honorable Rob-

ert W. Honeyman; Equitable Publishing Company, et al.

v. The Honorable Lawrence A. Brown; and Montgomery

Publishing Company v. The Honorable Lawrence A.

Brown.

Notices of Appeal were filed on August 5, 1977 in the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Notices of Appeal

Jurisdictional Statement 3

are appended hereto as Exhibits 6 through 10. This single

jurisdictional statement is filed on behalf of Rive separate

appeals from the Orders of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-

vania involving identical or closely related questions, in

accordance with Rule 15(3) of this Court.

The text of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Pro-

cedure whose validity is challenged by this appeal is as

follows:

“Rule 323. Suppression of Evidence

(a) The defendant or his attorney may make

application to the court to suppress any evidence

alleged to have been obtained in violation of the de-

fendant’s constitutional rights.

(b) Unless the opportunity did not previously

exist, or the interests of justice otherwise require, such

application shall be made only after a case has been

returned to court and not later than ten days before

the beginning of the trial session in which the case is

listed for trial, except that in any judicial district hav-

ing continuous trial sessions said application shall be

filed not later than ten days before the day the case

is listed for trial. If timely application is not made

hereunder, the issue of the admissibility of such evi-

dence shall be deemed to be waived.

(c) Such application shall be made to the court

of the county in which the prosecution is pending.

(d) The application shall state specifically the

evidence sought to be suppressed, the specific consti-

tutional grounds rendering the evidence inadmissible,

and shall state with particularity the facts and events

in support thereof.

(e) Upon the filing of such application, a judge

of the court shall fix a time for hearing, which may be

Jurisdictional Statement

either prior to or at trial, and which shall afford the

attorney for the Commonwealth a reasonable oppor-

tunity for investigation and answer, and shal! cnter

such interim order as may be appropriate in the inter-

ests of justice and the expeditious disposition of

criminal cases.

(£) The hearing, either before or at trial, shall

be held in open court unless defendant, by his coun-

sel, moves that it be held in the presence of only the

defendant, counsel for the parties, court officers and

necessary witnesses. In any event, the hearing shall

be held outside the hearing and presence of the jury.

In all cases the court may make such order concern-

ing publicity of the proceedings as it deems appropri-

ate under Rules 326 and 327.

(g) A record shall be made of all evidence

adduced at the hearing. The clerk of court shall

impound the record and the nature and purpose of

the hearing and the order disposing of the applica-

tion shall not be disclosed by anyone to anyone except

to the defendant and counsel for the parties. The

record shall remain thus impounded unless the in-

terests of justice require its disclosure.

(h) The Commonwealth shall have the burden

of going forward with the evidence and of establish-

ing the admissibility of the challenged evidence. The

defendant may testify at such hearing, and, if he

does so, he does not thereby waive his right to remain

silent during trial.

(i) At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge

shall enter on the record a statement of findings of

fact and conclusions of law as to whether the evi-

Jurisdictional Statement 5

dence was obtained in violation of the defendant's

constitutional rights, and shall make an order grant-

ing or denying the relief sought.

(j) If the court determines that the evidence is

admissible, such determination shall be final, conclu-

sive and binding at trial, except upon a showing of

evidence which was theretofore unavailable, but noth-

ing herein shall prevent a defendant from opposing

such evidence at trial upon any ground except its

admissibility.” (emphasis added).

“Rule 326. Special Orders Governing Widely-

Publicized or Sensational Cases

In a widely-publicized or sensational case, the

Court, on motion of either party or on its own mo-

tion, may issue a special order governing such matters

as extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesses

likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a

fair trial by an impartial jury, the seating and con-

duct in the courtroom of spectators and news media

representatives, the management and sequestration of

jurors and witnesses, and any other matters which the

Court may deem appropriate for inclusion in such an

order. In such cases it may be appropriate for the

court to consult with representatives of the news

media concerning the issuance of a special order.”

19 Pa. S. (1977) Rules Supp. )

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2103, ap-

pellants ask the Court to regard this Jurisdictional State-

ment as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the event it

is determined that this appeal has been improvidently

taken.

6 Jurisdictional Statement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.

US Ae

+-—Whether the provisions of Pennsylvania Rules of

Criminal Procedure 323(f) and (g), which permit the

closing of & pretrial hearing at the request of criminal

defendant and mandate the impoundment of all records

of the hearing~aze void on their face because they deny,

in violation of the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amend-

ments, the public’s right to be contemporaneously in-

formed about court proceedings, such denial being effected

without hearing and with no showing as to +e} the nature

and extent of pretrial news coverage and the potential for

prejudice to the criminal defendant, and (b) whether

other measures could protect the defendant’s right to a

fair trial without obliteration of the rights of the press and

public?

Are

‘2.) Whether Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Pro-

cedure 323 and 326, pursuant to which the trial courts

entered orders which ¢+ closed their courtroom}, 4}

sealed official court recordss.and ¢#t} prohibited parties,

witnesses, attorneys and others from communicating with

the press, thus totally prohibiting, with no hearing or

showing of potential prejudice, publication of any news

concerning important criminal trials and pre-trial proceed-

ingseare-void as applied in that they effect impermissible

prior restraints on publication in violation of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments.

j

|

|

Jurisdictional Statement 7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

I. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., et al.’ vy. The Honorable

Domenic D. Jerome, Judge of the Court of Common

Pleas of Delaware County.

This action arose from proceedings in the re-trial of

W. A. “Tony” Boyle, former President of the United Mine

Workers of America, in the Court of Common Pleas of

Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Boyle’s first trial,

which resulted in a conviction for the execution-style slay-

ings of a rival for union office and members of his family,

received nationwide attention. The conviction was re-

versed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,’ and a new

trial ordered. On March 28, 1977, during pretrial pro-

ceedings on remand, the trial court entered a comprehen-

sive order prohibiting parties, attorneys and their associ-

ates, all public officials and others from, inter alia,

releasing extrajudicial statements relating to the case,

commenting upon any evidence and disseminating any

documents the admissibility of which may have to be

determined by the Court. On May 2, 1977, “all papers,

1. The parties below were:

Philadelphia N , Inc., publisher of The Philadel-

phia Inquirer and P. lphia Daily News, newspapers of

eneral circulation throughout Pennsylvania and the Delaware

alley region; The Associated Press, a New York non-profit

association which is the largest gatherer of news in the United

States; Central States Publishing, Inc., publisher of The Dela-

ware County Times of Delaware County, P lvania; The

Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association; Pennsyl-

vania Society of tag = and Editors; and The Society of Pro-

fessional Journalists, Si Delta Chi, Greater Philadelphia

Chapter, which are p associations of Pennsylvania

journalists.

2. Commonwealth v. Boyle, 386 A. 2d 661 (Pa. 1977).

8 Jurisdictional Statement

documents and records filed and to be filed in this matter”

were ordered sealed and impounded.’ Also on May 2,

1977, the trial court orally ordered the courtroom cleared

of all representatives of the press and public and there-

after commenced hearings on defense suppression motions

behind closed doors. All of these orders were entered at

the request of the defense and with the concurrence of

the Commonwealth. No hearing was held, no finding of

potential prejudice was made, and no alternative and less

restrictive methods of insuring a fair and impartial trial

were considered.

On May 4, 1977, appellants filed a Petition to Vacate

the trial court’s orders. The trial court signed a Rule, re-

turnable on May 9, 1977, after the scheduled completion

date of the suppression hearings. Appellants thereupon

filed with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on May 4,

1977, Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition and

for Pienary Jurisdiction.‘ In these Petitions, appellants

asserted that the trial court’s orders infringed upon free

speech and violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu-

tion by spreading a pervasive cloak of secrecy over an

important criminal trial with no showing of potential

prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.

On May 9, 1977, the trial court heard argument on the

Petition to Vacate. Appellants contended specifically that

the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure were un-

3. Because of the impoundment order, the orders themselves

were not made available to appellants until released by the trial

court for the purpose of this litigation.

4. The Petition for Plenary Jurisdiction was filed pursuant to

on of eo ee Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, 17 Pa. S.

211.205, which provides for the assumption by the Supreme Court

of — jurisdiction over matters of immediate public importance

) authority to enter orders to “cause right and justice to be

ne.

ee 5 oe

Jurisdictional Statement g

constitutional (Transcript of Hearing Before The Honor-

able Domenic D. Jerome in Commonwealth v. W. A.

“Tony” Boyle, May 9, 1977, p. 15). Appellants also

asserted that prior to the entry of orders which closed the

courtroom, sealed all records and imposed a “gag”, a

hearing should have been held to determine the propriety

of the orders under the circumstances and to ascertain

whether “more narrow orders could be drawn which might

protect the rights of the defendant without unduly in-

fringing upon the rights of the press” (Id. at pp. 9-10).

The trial judge ruled that he was obligated to accord

prima facie validity to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's

Rules, and denied the Petition to Vacate.

_ On May 23, 1977, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

denied both Petitions for Mandamus and for Plenary

Jurisdiction, thus rejecting appellants’ claims as to the con-

stitutional infirmity of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

10 Jurisdictional Statement

Il. Montgomery County Cases.

Equitable Publishing Company, Inc., et al.° v. The

Honorable Robert W. Honeyman; and Equitable

Publishing Company, Inc., et al. v. The Honor-

able Lawrence A. Brown.

Montgomery Publishing Company * v. The Honorable

Robert W. Honeyman; and Montgomery Pub-

lishing Company v. The Honorable Lawrence A.

Brown.

These actions were filed in connection with two sep-

arate criminal trials pending in the Court of Common Pleas

of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v.

John Palmer, No. 149-77 and Commonwealth v. Larry J.

Phillips, No. 5060-76. The defendant in the Palmer case

was a policeman charged with the kidnap-murder of a

young girl. The defendant in Phillips was accused of

murdering a Montgomery County policeman. In both

cases, the trial courts entered orders, pursuant to the Penn-

sylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, which closed the

courtrooms to the press and public during pretrial hearings,

sealed and impounded all records of the hearings, and

prohibited parties, attorneys, police officers, prospective

5. The parties below were:

Equitable Publishin Congeny, Inc., publisher of The

North Penn orter of Lansda e, Montgomery County, Penn-

sylvania and The Town and Country of Pennsburg, Mont-

gomery County, Pennsylvania, and owner and operator of

on station WNPV of Lansdale, Montgomery County, Penn-

vania;

7 The Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi,

Greater Philadelphia Chapter; The Pennsylvania Newspaper

Publishers Association; and The Pennsylvania Society of News-

paper Editors, professional associations of Pennsylvania jour-

nalists.

6. Montgomery Publishing Company is the publisher of ten

newspapers distributed in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Jurisdictional Statement ll

witnesses and others from discussing or commenting about

the cases. Petitions to Vacate the trial courts’ orders, rais-

ing the identical issues as in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

v. Jerome, were filed in each action. These Petitions were

denied for lack of standing. Thereafter, Petitions for

Mandamus and/or Prohibition and Petitions for Assump-

tion of Plenary Jurisdiction were filed with the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania. All Petitions were denied without

opinion on June 20, 1977. « : eS

12 Jurisdictional Statement

THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE

SUBSTANTIAL.

I. Rules of Criminal Procedure Mandating Closed Pretrial

Suppression Hearings and Impounded Court Records

Based Solely on the Request of the Defendant, With-

out Hearing or Any Finding of a Potential for Preju-

dice, Violate Appellants’ Fundamental Constitutional

Rights.

In Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539

(1976), this Court specifically left undecided issues relat-

ing to (a) the validity of the closing of pretrial proceedings

with the consent of the defendant, and (b) judicially im-

posed restraints on lawyers and others. Id., 427 U. S. at

564, n. 8. At issue here are cases in which, during a very

brief period of time, three separate trial courts in important

criminal prosecutions closed pretrial hearings, sealed court

records and imposed broad restraining orders on attorneys

and others, in reliance upon procedural rules permitting

action merely upon motion of the defendant, affording no

hearing to the parties excluded and foreclosed from access

to the news. The courts below gave no consideration to

less restrictive methods of preserving the criminal defend-

ant’s right to a fair trial, such as impaneling and sequester-

ing a jury prior to the pretrial suppression hearing.

It is imperative for this Court to take these appeals

and decide whether, and if so, when and under what cir-

cumstances pretrial proceedings in criminal cases may be

closed in response to assertions of possible prejudicial

publicity. Courts throughout the country, in their zealous

and frequently misguided desire to protect the Sixth

Amendment rights of criminal defendants, have been.

closing courtrooms and sealing court records with dan-

gerously increasing frequency. The limits of a trial court’s

Jurisdictional Statement 13

power to deny public access to information concerning

crucial stages of the criminal process must be tested, and a

decision on these appeals, after full briefing and argument,

is necessary for the preservation of fundamental First

Amendment rights.

By denying appellants’ Petitions, the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of its own

Rules which provide for the closing of suppression hear-

ings and sealing of records at the whim of a defendant,

without regard to the probability of any harm from pub-

lication and the interests of the public in open criminal

judicial proceedings. Such blanket exclusion of the news

media from judicial proceedings ignores the unique role

of the media in reporting criminal trials and pre-trial pro-

ceedings, as recognized by this Court in Cox Broadcasting

Co. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 491-92 (1975):

“[I]n a society in which each individual has but

limited time and resources with which to observe at

first hand the operations of his government, he relies

necessarily upon the press to bring to him in con-

venient form the facts of those operations. Great re-

sponsibility is accordingly placed upon the news

media to report fully and accurately the proceedings

of government, and official records and documents

open to the public are the basic data of governmental

operations. Without the information provided by the

press most of us and many of our representatives

would be unable to vote intelligently or to register

opinions on the administration of government gen-

erally. With respect to judicial proceedings in par-

ticular, the function of the press serves to guarantee

the fairness of trials and to bring to bear the beneficial

effects of public scrutiny upon the administration of

. ti -

14 Jurisdictional Statement

See also, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 349-50

(1966); Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 541-42, reh. den.

382 U. S. 875 (1965); Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 374

(1947).

It is meaningless to say that the press is free to pub-

lish truthful information about criminal proceedings when

press and public can be and are denied access to the court-

room and to the official records of the proceedings therein,

so that information about important judicial proceedings

cannot be gathered and reported to the public at large.

Few traditions in this country have greater strength

than that of the administration of justice before the public

and the press. Only recently have we seen the wide

assault on that tradition exemplified by the orders in these

cases. The foundation for the tradition of public trials

and pre-trial proceedings was succinctly described by this

Court In Re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 268-270 (1948):

““The traditional Anglo-American distrust for

secret trials has been variously ascribed to the notori-

ous use of this practice by the Spanish Inquisition, to

the excesses of the English Court of Star Chamber,

and to the French monarchy’s abuse of the lettre de

cachet. All of these institutions obviously symbolized

a menace to liberty. ... The knowledge that every

criminal trial is subject to contemperaneous review in

the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on

possible abuse of judicial power.’ ” *

More recently, in Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U. S. at 374,

this Court declared:

7. Pretrial hearin on eee sets) Onied Suan, See

Kirby v. Illinois, 406 's. 682, 689- l United States ex rel.

Bennett v. Rundle, 419 F. 2d 599 (3d Cir. 198) (en banc); United

States v. Clark, 475 F. 2d 240 (2d Cir. 1973).

\

Jurisdictional Statement 15

“A trial is a public event. What transpires in the

courtroom is public property. ... Those who see

and hear what transpired can report it with impunity.

There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which

enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of

democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor

events which transpire in proceedings before it.”

In an action like the Boyle murder retrial involv-

ing the former head of one of the nation’s most powerful

labor unions, or in entirely different factual contexts, as in

the Palmer and Phillips cases, involving the murder of

a policeman and a young girl, courts must fully investi-

gate the potential for prejudice prior to entering orders

restricting the public’s access to court proceedings. In

all of these actions, each with entirely different facts, the

trial courts entered virtually identical orders at the mere

request of the defendants. Secret or closed judicial pro-

ceedings are the antithesis of the orderly operation of our

public institutions. Secrecy breeds suspicion, distrust and

rumor, or, what may be worse, encourages public apathy

and indifference. Public confidence in the administration

of justice is directly served by judicial proceedings open

to public scrutiny. Numerous courts throughout the coun-

try have held that the public has a cognizable constitu-

tional interest in keeping trials open.* The First and Sixth

Amendments command that, absent extraordinary circum-

é. ay States ex rel. Lloyd v. Vincent, 520 F. 2d

1972 1378 (54 Cu , cert. denied 423 U. S. 937 (1975); Lewis v.

P. ae Fe od 7 91, 792 (4th Cir. 1965); United States v. Kobli,

172 F. F.2d 919, 924 (3d Cir. 1949); Unite States v. Sorrentino, 175

F. 2d 721, 722-23 Cir.), cert. denied 338 U. S. 868, reh. denied

338 U. S. 896 (1 ; United States ex rel. Mayberry v. Tongee, 321

F. Supp. 199, 204 D. N. J. 1971); Gannett Company

— N. Y. S. 2d — (New York Supreme ne Court, APP haneliete

sion 1976); Hearst v. Cholakes, — — (New York

Supreme A Division ( 1876)) State ex i Dayton

Newspapers ov. P. , 46 Ohio St. 2d 457, 351 N. E. 2d 197

16 Jurisdictional Statement

stances, criminal proceedings be public. The criminal

defendant himself has no right to compel a private trial.

See Singer v. United States, 380 U. S. 24, 35 (1965).

The issues raised by the instant appeal are of profound

national importance. When and under what circumstances

the criminal process can be closed from public view is an

issue of immense concern to courts throughout the coun-

try, seeking appropriate methods to insure fair and im-

partial trials while preserving and protecting the interests

of the public at large. The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal

Procedure, which permit and indeed mandate closed pro-

ceedings at the mere request of a defendant cannot meet

constitutional muster. In numerous decisions, this Court

has recognized that “pretrial publicity—even pervasive,

adverse publicity—does not inevitably lead to an unfair

trial.” Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart, supra, 427 U. S.

at 554. See also, Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181 (1952);

Beck v. Washington, 369 U. S. 541 (1962); Murphy v.

Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975). At the very least, there-

fore, this Court should, after full hearing of these appeals

preclude the closing of criminal proceedings unless it can

be demonstrated, by the clear and convincing evidence °

8. (Cont'd. )

py State ex rel. Gore Nony'C per omy i, v. Tyson, 313 So.

d 777 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1975); Citizen Publishing Company v.

Buchanan, 22 Ariz. App. 521 (ira): ee v. Hinton, 31 N. Y. 2d

71, 75, 334 N. Y. S. 885, 286 N. E. 2 265 (1972), cert. denied

410 U.S. 911 (1, Oliver v. Postel, 30 N. Y. 2d 171, 331 N. Y. S.

2d 207 (1972); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz.

557, 490 P. 2d 563 (1971); rd Publishing Co. v. Superior

Court, 68 Cal. Rptr. 83 (Ct. App 1968); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

wv. Superior Court, 101 Ariz. 418 P. 2d 594 (en banc 1966);

E. W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton, 100 Ohio App. 157, 125 N. E. 2d 896

renee appeal dismissed as moot, 164 Ohio 261, 130 N. E. 2d 701

Sup. Ct. 1955); Kirtowsty v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. Rptr. 2d

745, 300 P. 2d 163 (Ct. App. 1956).

9. This Court has adopted the “clear and convincing evidence”

standard in other contexts involving protection of First Amendment

Jurisdictional Statement 17

necessary to overcome the heavy presumption against con-

stitutional validity *° of any order restricting publication

of information ordinarily in the public domain, that (a)

the nature and extent of pretrial publicity creates a clear

and immediate threat to the fairness of the trial; and (b)

no other available measures will be adequate to preserve

defendant's right to a fair trial.

The public’s fundamental right to be informed of the

criminal process is thus involved in this case. In view of

the sweeping effect of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal

Procedure here challenged, which place a mantle of

secrecy around integral portions of criminal trials, it is of

the utmost importance that this Court take and decide

this case. Further, in view of the nationwide dilemma

faced by trial courts in dealing with prejudicial publicity

and efforts of defense counsel to foreclose public proceed-

ings, it is imperative for the court to hear and decide this

appeal, and to establish guidelines for the co-existence of

the rights and interests of criminal defendants and those

of the public at large.

II. As Applied, The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Pro-

cedure Amount to a Prior Restraint on Free Speech

and Press by Precluding all Access to Information

About Pending Criminal Trials.

Although no order was entered by the trial courts

directly enjoining publication by the news media, all

possible sources of information concerning the cases were

9. (Cont’d.)

freedoms. See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., = > S. 323, 342

1904)" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U S. 254, 285-86

10. Times-P: Publishing , Sane 419

U. S. 1301, 1307 (1974) (In Chenbar oval

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 "§ 713, 714 (1

18 Jurisdictional Statement

effectively closed to them. Such a pervasive denial of

access to news about criminal proceedings constitutes, in

effect, a prior restraint upon freedom of expression. Free-

dom of the press, if it is to mean anything, must include

the right to publish contemporaneous accounts of criminal

proceedings. That right is lost when, as in the cases now

on appeal, the ability to publish is lost due to a total in-

ability to gain information.

Long ago James Madison wrote, “A popular govern-

ment, without popular information or the means of

acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or

perhaps both.” 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G.

Hurst ed. 1910) (emphasis added). See also, Mieklejohn,

Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, at 39

(1948).

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that news-

gathering and the right to receive information are pro-

tected by the First Amendment for: “without some pro-

tection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press

could be eviscerated”. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665,

681, 707 (1972). See also, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v.

FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 390 (1969); Stanley v. Georgia, 394

U. S. 557, 564 (1969); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381

U. S. 321 (1965). The restrictions imposed by the trial

courts’ orders effectively denied appellants access to any

information concerning the pending criminal proceedings—

the courtroom was closed, all records, motions and papers

filed were sealed and impounded, and all persons having

any connection with the case were prohibited from dis-

closing any information. This cloak of secrecy was and is

so extensive as to conceal from the public even the date on

which trial is scheduled to commence.

The impounding of all records made of a pretrial sup-

pression hearing is mandated by Pennsylvania Rule of

Jurisdictional Statement 19

Criminal Procedure 323(g). The Pennsylvania Supreme

Court has approved the impounding of all records in a

celebrated criminal proceeding at the mere request of the

defendant without benefit of any hearing for the parties

directly affected by the rulings.”

By contrast to the Pennsylvania courts, the Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in reviewing an order im-

pounding papers filed in the criminal proceedings against

Governor Mandel, has held the impoundment order to be

“an unnecessary prior restraint on freedom of the press,”

and issued a writ of mandamus vacating the impoundment

order. In Re Washington Post Company, et al., United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No.

76-1695, Writ of Mandamus issued July 19, 1976. See

also, Forcade ». Knight, 416 F. Supp. 1025 (D. D. C.

1976); Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc. vo.

Dukakis, 409 F. Supp. 895 (D. Mass. 1976); In Re Midwest

Milk Monopolization Litigation, 405 F. Supp. 118 (W. D.

Mo. 1975); Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906 (D. Haw.

1974); Charlottesville Newspapers, Inc. v. Berry, 215 Va.

116, 206 S. E. 2d 267 (1974).

Furthermore, the all-inclusive prohibition on dis-

semination of information concerning the trial or pre-trial

proceedings constitutes a prior restraint. In CBS, Inc. v.

Young, 522 F. 2d 234, 240 (6th Cir. 1975), an order pro-

hibiting those involved in a highly publicized criminal

case from discussing the case with any member of the

press or public was held to be “an extreme example of a

prior restraint upon freedom of speech and expression

.... See also, Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bower,

522 F. 2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975).

1l. In Boyle, all records in the action, including but not

limited to records of the suppression hearing, were sealed at the

request of defendant.

20 Jurisdictional Statement

The orders entered by the trial courts denied any ac-

cess to information concerning the pending criminal trials.

The orders and the Pennsylvania Rules pursuant to which

they were issued are clearly intended to restrict the flow

of information, as distinguished from the restrictions up-

held in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974) and Saxbe

v. The Washington Post Co., 417 U. S. 843 (1974). Un-

questionably, a trial court has the power to enter appropri-

ate protective orders where necessary to avoid a clear and

imminent threat to the administration of justice and to

preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Where, as

here, however, the orders are tantamount to the imposi-

tion of a prior restraint, denying any access to and thus

precluding publication of any information concerning the

criminal trials, their entry must at the very least be sup-

ported by the same standards necessary to support any

prior restraint. See Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart, supra.

Moreover, the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure

here challenged permit the entry of such orders without

so much as a hearing, let alone the showing necessary to

overcome the heavy presumption of invalidity. Accord-

ingly, it is essential for this Court to declare the invalidity

of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure which as

applied to these proceedings permit the imposition of

unnecessary prior restraints on publication without afford-

ing the slightest measure of procedural due process to

those restrained.

It seems impossible to overstate the importance of

the issues raised by the imposition of sweeping restrictive

orders without any showing as to their necessity or valid-

ity. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has permitted the

envelopment in total secrecy of significant judicial pro-

ceedings, drastically curtailing the constitutional rights of

the press and public in the name of a “fair trial”.

Jurisdictional Statement 21

CONCLUSION.

Based upon the foregoing arguments and authorities

it is requested that that Court note jurisdiction in this

appeal, receive full briefs on the merits, and hear oral argu-

ments in order to resolve the substantial federal questions

here involved.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: Dav H. Manion,

ARTHUR E. NEwso xp, IV, rt E. Kien,

DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS, OHN, SAVETT, MARION

& Grar, P. C.,

1500 Market Street, 1700 Market Street,

y , ] '

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

19102

19103

Roserta S. STAATS, (215) 665-990

Morcan, Lewis & Bocgtus, Attorne Appella

The Fidelity Building, ee

123 South Broad Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

19109

23

EXHIBIT 1

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

Prothonotary

Laura E. LircHanp Philadelphia, 19107

May 25, 1977

David H. Marion, Esq.

Kohn, Savett, Marion & Graf

1214 IVB Building

1700 Market Street

Philadelphia, Penna. 19103

Re: Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., et al., Petitioners

v. Honorable Domenic D. Jerome, No. 384,

Miscellaneous Docket No. 21 -~

Dear Mr. Marion:

This is to advise that the following Order has been

endorsed on both the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Prohibition and the Petition for Plenary Jurisdiction, filed

in the above captioned matter:

“May 23, 1977.

Denied.

s/ By the Court.”

Very truly yours,

/s/ Sauty Mrvos, cl

SM/c Prothonotary

cc: Hon. Domenic D. Jerome

Jonathan Vipond, III, Esq.

Richard A. Sprague, Esq.

A. Charles Peruto, Esq.

24

EXHIBIT 2

RECEIVED JUNE 23, 1977

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

[EASTERN DISTRICT

SaLty Mrvos

Prothonotary

Laura E. LitcHarp

Deputy Prothonotary

Philadelphia, 19107

June 22, 1977

Arthur E. Newbold, IV, Esquire

Dechert, Price & Rhoads

3400 Centre Square West

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Re: Equitable Publishing Company, Inc., et al.,

Petitioners, v. The Honorable Robert W.

Honeyman, etc., No. 399 Miscellaneous

Docket No. 21

Dear Mr. Newbold:

The Court has entered the following Order on the

Petition for Assumption of Plenary Jurisdiction and on

the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition filed

in the above-captioned matter:

June 20, 1977

Denied.

By the Court

Very truly yours,

SALLY Mrvos

Prothonotary

By /s/ Laura E. LircHarp

Laura E. Litchard

LEL:cl Deputy Prothonotary

ce: Ross Weiss, Esquire

Vincent J. Fumo, Esquire

Jonathan Vipond, III, Esquire

25

EXHIBIT 3

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DIsTRICT

Satty Mrvos

Oo Philadelphia, 19107

June 23, 1977

Roberta S. Staats, Esquire

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, Pa. 19109

Re: Montgomery Publishing Company, Petitioner,

v. The Honorable Robert W. Honeyman, etc.,

No. 400 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

Dear Ms. Staats:

The Court has entered the following Order on the

Petition for Review in the Nature of Prohibition filed in

the above-captioned matter:

June 20, 1977 »

Denied.

By the Court

Very truly yours,

SALLY Mrvos

Prothonotary

By: /s/ Laura E. LrrcHarp

Laura E. Litchard

LEL:cl Deputy Prothonotary

cc: Ross Weiss, Esquire

Vincent J. Fumo, Esquire

Jonathan Vipond, III, Esquire

26

EXHIBIT 4

RECEIVED JUNE 24, 1977

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DistTRICT

SaLtty Mrvos

Prothonotary

E. LircHarp i i

— aA Philadelphia, 19107

June 23, 1977

Arthur E. Newbold, IV, Esquire

Dechert, Price & Rhoads

3400 Centre Square West

1500 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pa. 19102

Re: Equitable Publishing Company, Inc., et al.,

Petitioners, v. The Honorable Lawrence A.

Brown, etc.—No. 406 Miscellaneous Docket

No. 21

Dear Mr. Newbold:

The Court has entered the following Order on both

the Petition for Assumption of Plenary Jurisdiction and

the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition filed

in the above-captioned matter:

June 20, 1977

Denied.

By the Court

Very truly yours,

SALLY Mrvos

Prothonotary

By /s/ Laura E. LircHarp

Laura E. Litchard

LEL:cl Deputy Prothonotary

ce: Hon. Robert P. Kane

Joseph L. Santaguida, Esquire

William T. Nicholas, Esquire

Jonathan Vipond, III, Esquire

27

EXHIBIT 5

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DIsTRICT

SaLLy Mrvos

Laura E. Lircuarp Philadelphi

iAa-—™ adelphia, 19107

June 23, 1977

Roberta S. Staats, Esquire

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, Pa. 19109

Re: Montgomery Publishing Company, Petitioner,

v. The Honorable Lawrence A. Brown, etc.

No. 407 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

Dear Ms. Staats:

The Court has «>tered the following Order on both

the Application Requesting That This Court Assume

Plenary Jurisdiction and on the Petition for Review in the

Nature of Prohibition filed in the above-captioned matter:

June 20, 1977

Denied.

By the Court

Very truly yours,

SALLY Mrvos

Prothonotary

By: /s/ Laura E. LrrcHarp

Laura E. Litchard

LEL:cl Deputy Prothonotary

ce: William T. Nicholas, Esquire

Joseph C. Santaguida, Esquire

Jonathan Vipond, III, Esquire

EXHIBIT 6

Date filed: August 5, 1977

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DisTRICT

No. 384 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al.,

Petitioners

o.

THE HONORABLE DOMENIC D. JEROME, Judge of

the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Philadelphia Newspapers,

Inc., The Associated Press, Central States Publishing, Inc.,

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, The

Pennsylvania Society of Newspaper Editors, and Society

of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, Greater

Philadelphia Chapter, Petitioners above named, hereby

29

appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2) to the Supreme

Court of the United States from the Judgment and Order

of this Court, dated May 23, 1977, denying the Petition for

Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition.

/s/ Samuet E. Kien

Davip H. Marion

SAMUEL E. KLEIN

KouN, SAVETT, MARION

& Grar, P. C.

1214 IVB Building

1700 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103

(215) 665-9900

Attorneys for Petitioners-

Appellants

Dated: August 5, 1977

30

EXHIBIT 7

Date Filed: August 5, 1977

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DIsTRICT

No. 399 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

EQUITABLE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., et al.,

Petitioners

v.

THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. HONEYMAN, Judge

of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Equitable Publishing

Company, Inc., The Society of Professional Journalists,

Sigma Delta Chi, Greater Philadelphia Chapter, The

Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers’ Association, and The

Pennsylvania Society of Newspaper Editors, Petitioners

above named, hereby appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C.

§ 1257(2) to the Supreme Court of the United States from

the Judgment and Order of this Court, dated June 20,

31

1977, denying the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Prohibition.

Dated: August 5, 1977

/s/ SamueEt E. Kien

Davi H. Marion

SAMUEL E. KLEIN

Koun, SAVETT, MARION

& Grar, P. C.

1214 IVB Building

1700 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103

(215) 665-9900

Attorneys for Petitioners-

Appellants

EXHIBIT 8

Date Filed: August 5, 1977

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

No. 400 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

MONTGOMERY PUBLISHING COMPANY,

Petitioner

THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. HONEYMAN, Judge

of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Montgomery Publishing

Company, Petitioner above named, hereby appeals pur-

suant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2) to the Supreme Court of

the United States from the Judgment and Order of this

33

Court, dated June 20, 1977, denying the Petition for Writ

of Mandamus and Prohibition.

Dated: August 5, 1977

/s/ Samue. E. Kiem

Davip H. MARION

SAMUEL E. Kern

Koun, SAVETT, MARION

& Grar, P. C.

1214 IVB Building

1700 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103

(215) 665-9900

Attorneys for Petitioner-

Appellant

35

EXHIBIT 9 the Judgment and Order of this Court, dated June 20,

1977, denying the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

pee Prohibition.

Date filed: August 5, 1977 /s/ Samue. E. Kien

Davi H. Marion

IN THE SAMUEL E. Kern

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Koun, SAVETT, MARION

EASTERN DISTRICT & Grar, P. C.

1214 IVB Building

— 1700 Market Street

No. 406 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21 = Fonney!

Pade (215) 665-9900

Attorneys for Petitioners-

EQUITABLE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants

tit

Petitioners Dated: August 5, 1977

v.

THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN, Judge of

the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Equitable Publishing

Company, Inc., The Society of Professional Journalists,

Sigma Delta Chi, Greater Philadelphia Chapter, The

Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers’ Association and The

Pennsylvania Society of Newspaper Editors, Petitioners

above named, hereby appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C.

§ 1257(2) to the Supreme Court of the United States from

36

EXHIBIT 10

NalK Aled hequs7 5, 2977

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DIsTRICT

No. 407 Miscellaneous Docket No. 21

MONTGOMERY PUBLISHING COMPANY,

Petitioner

THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN, Judge of

the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Montgomery Publishing

Company, Petitioner above named, hereby appeals pur-

suant to 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2) to the Supreme Court of

the United States from the Judgment and Order of this

37

Court, dated June 20, 1977, denying the Petition for Writ

of Mandamus and Prohibition.

/s/ SamueEt E. Kiem

Davip H. Marion

SAMUEL E. KLEIN

Koun, SAVETT, MARION

& Grar, P. C.

1214 IVB Building

1700 Market Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103

(215) 665-9900

Attorneys for Petitioner-

Appellant

Dated: August 5, 1977