Opinion
(9479) (9484)
Argued September 18, 1990
Decision released September 18, 1990
This decision was released from the bench following argument.
Information, in the first case, charging the defendant with three counts of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of the crime of attempted sexual assault in the first degree, and with the crimes of assault in the first degree and kidnapping in the first degree, and information, in the second case, charging the defendant with three counts of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree, and with the crime of kidnapping in the first degree, and information, in the third case, charging the defendant with three counts of the crime of aggravated sexual assault in the first degree, and information, in the fourth case, charging the defendant with the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and kidnapping in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Leheney, J., granted the motions to intervene filed by Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., and by Cablevision of Connecticut Limited Partnership; thereafter, the court granted the defendant's motions to close the court to the public during bail reduction proceedings, and the intervenors filed separate petitions for review with this court. Vacated.
David S. Golub, with whom was Tanina Rostain, for the appellant (intervenor Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.).
Christopher Rooney, with whom, on the brief, was J. Charles Mokriski, for the appellant (intervenor Cablevision of Connecticut Limited Partnership).
John F. Kavanewsky, Jr., for the appellee (defendant).
The appellants, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The Advocate, a daily newspaper with circulation in lower Fairfield County, and Cablevision of Connecticut Limited Partnership, operator of a television outlet serving the same area, were granted permission to intervene in this matter to object to the defendant's motion to close further bail proceedings from the public and the news media. They take this appeal, pursuant to General Statutes 51-164x, from the decision of the trial court granting closure.
We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and are satisfied that the standards enunciated in Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), apply. The defendant has failed to show that there is a substantial likelihood that irreparable damage to a fair trial will result from conducting public proceedings. Nor has he shown that alternatives to closure will not adequately protect his right to a fair trial, or that closure will be effective in protecting against the perceived harm.