# Jurisdictional Statement — Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2440%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 241 ## Text 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 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2440%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.