Epstein Secrets

ler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011) (release of President Nixon’s grand jury deposition testimony in connection w

. I 83, The Sup_reme Col!rt has further recogniz~d tha.t the pres_s h~s a constitution~l -ngp,t I of access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v: VirgiJJia, 448 U.S. 555, 3 indC!ed, such a limitation would render the ~t.atute a prior restraint, ''the most seribus and the ieast tol_etable

e eee rere oe wel rare otanelv ene Ccenias ees 13 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., OS CUBR tay OLY.) En a

. Superior Court, A478 U.S. 1 (1986)... eececsssescssseeseeseeeesseeseeseeeseseseesaeesseesesecessessseesesseseeesecaesaeeaeseseanseaesaneeaseass 13 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)... eeeesecsceesesseeeseeseecseseeceseeseessesseseeeeseesaeesseaessesoeeseeeesceeseeesesenseeeeates 13, 14 Constitut

ates Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure

ions on right of public access to trials bolsters the understanding of the Article II's provision to protect the community interest. In cases such as Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, the Court has held that implicit in the First Amendment is a guarantee of the public's right to attend trials. 3”4 Compelling victims’ i

. P. 17(c)(Q). °4 See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 689 (1974). 95 See id. at 699. D

circuit broadcasting of the trial, 42 U.S.C_A. 10608(a) (West Supp. 1998), and on a First Amendment right of access to public court proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 577 (1980) (finding First Amendment right of court access). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017720 --- PAGE BREAK --- Pag