This matter arose out of the highly publicized 2001
disappearance of Chandra Levy, a congressional intern, from Rock Creek Park.
Almost a decade later, in October 2010, Ingmar Guandique stood trial in D.C.
Superior Court for the murder of Chandra Levy. The trial was of significant
public interest and therefore engendered a great deal of media attention. The
public nature of the disappearance and trial forced the trial court and parties
to devote considerable discussion to the process of selecting a fair and
impartial jury. Furthermore, defense counsel was concerned about ensuring that
prospective jurors could be impartial in light of unique issues including
feelings on Latino ethnicity, illegal immigration, and knowledge of gang
affiliation.
As a result, the trial court and parties decided to
make use of written questionnaires in an effort to streamline the voir dire
process. The questionnaire used consisted of fifty-five written questions
seeking routine demographic information as well as information uniquely
relevant to Guandique’s trial such as knowledge of Rock Creek Park, local
gang activity, and views on illegal immigration. Once the sixteen (16)
jurors were selected for service, the Washington Post filed a Motion to
Intervene and sought access to the completed questionnaires for the seated
jury.
The Washington Post’s motion argued that the public,
including the media, was “presumptively entitled to contemporaneous access”
to the jury selection process and there was no compelling reason for a
“blanket refusal to disclose the questionnaires.” In Re Access at *5. The
trial court judge, the Honorable Gerald Fisher, declined to produce them,
stating that the questionnaires indicated that they would be kept
confidential by the Court, and that the usefulness of such questionnaires
would diminish in the future if the Court allowed media access to them.
The Washington Post appealed the Superior Court’s
decision to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court
first noted that the case required decision despite the fact that the
Washington Post could no longer obtain the jury questionnaires
contemporaneously with the criminal proceedings. “The right of public access
is ‘a right that any member of the public can assert,’ whether it is for the
purpose of reporting on a trial as it unfolds or researching jury selection
ten years later.” In Re Access at *8 (citing Mokhiber v. Davis, 537 A.2d
1100, 1105 (D.C. 1988)).
Thereafter, the Appellate Court agreed with the
Washington Post that the public and media are presumptively entitled to
obtain such information. The Appellate Court cited the public’s presumptive
First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, and that such right of
access includes the jury selection process. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984). The Appellate Court found no basis for treating
such written questionnaires that were clearly part of the voir dire process
differently than oral questioning. Courts generally may not order blanket
closure of such information. Rather, a trial court must first “articulate .
. . with the requisite specificity” the “protectible privacy interests” at
stake and then consider whether alternatives to complete closure are
available to protect those privacy interests. Id.
Therefore, the matter was remanded to the D.C. Superior
Court to formulate a remedy which included determining what specific
information in the questionnaires could not be disclosed based on protected
privacy interests, and then releasing the questionnaires to the public.
Top
