Seattle Times Company, Petitioner v. Richard M. Ishikawa, as Judge of the Superior Court, Respondent; the Hearst…

Summary

Acting on consolidated original mandamus petitions by the Seattle Times and the Hearst Corporation (Post-Intelligencer), the Washington Supreme Court, en banc, held that a superior court judge erred in closing a pretrial hearing on a motion to dismiss in the Marler murder prosecution and in sealing the record of that hearing. Relying on Wash. Const. art. 1, § 10 rather than the First Amendment, the court recognized a public and press right of access to court proceedings that is not absolute, and announced a five-step framework for closure and sealing: a showing of need ('likelihood of jeopardy' for fair-trial-based closure, 'serious and imminent threat' for other interests), an opportunity to object informed by reasonably specific grounds, consideration of the least restrictive effective means, weighing of competing interests reflected in specific findings, and orders no broader in application or duration than necessary. Because the trial judge failed at each of the three relevant stages to articulate the interests protected, make findings, consider alternatives, or tailor the order, the court remanded for reconsideration of the motion to unseal, expressly limiting its error finding to this record. Dolliver, J., concurring (joined by Utter, J.), would never allow witness safety to justify a secrecy order, and Dore, J., concurring, clarified that the public's access rights must yield to the defendant's fair trial rights where the two cannot be accommodated.