Justices void jail threat for courtroom reporter
Judge had ordered financial details in suit not be printed
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a judge’s threat to jail a journalist if she reported details of testimony given during a trial.
The order by state District Judge Alan Malott came in a high-profile lawsuit involving the family that operates Ski Santa Fe, triggering a legal challenge by the Albuquerque Journal and a showdown over the First Amendment.
Lawyers representing the family of Mary Pat Abruzzo argued for keeping some financial information in the case private. Attorneys for the newspaper countered that Malott’s order to stifle news coverage of a trial would unconstitutionally restrict journalists from reporting on public proceedings.
The trial in April was the latest turn in a complicated, yearslong legal battle between Abruzzo’s widower and two of her brothers. An Albuquerque resident who died in 1997, Abruzzo is part of a family that owns some landmark real estate in New Mexico, including the Sandia Peak Tram.
During the first day of the trial, Malott told the audience — which included a reporter from the Journal — that the proceedings would include discussion of financial information, but everyone present was prohibited from discussing certain details outside of his Albuquerque courtroom.
“If I find out that any of you have leaked any of the information you see and … hear as a member of the audience, I will bring criminal contempt charges against you. That will mean a trip out to the MDC,” Malott said referring to the county jail. “For those of you who have been there, you know it’s unpleasant. For those of you have not been there, I suggest you avoid the experience.”
Court proceedings are generally open
to the public, though judges can close their courtrooms for certain testimony or hearings. Malott did not do so in this case. Instead, he maintained that his order to keep anyone from reporting certain testimony was necessary to strike a balance between protecting privacy and the public’s right to observe a trial.
Malott has been on the bench in Albuquerque since 2009 and previously worked for about 30 years as a trial attorney. He made the news recently for releasing some files on former Catholic priests accused of sex abuse, and he used to write a column for the Journal on legal issues.
A lawyer for the Journal appeared in court later that day and challenged the legality of Malott’s order. Malott told him to get a writ — a command from a higher court.
So the newspaper and the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government took the case to the state Supreme Court. The five justices heard oral arguments Wednesday morning, with the threat of jail time for reporting on the proceedings apparently still looming.
Susan Sullivan, a lawyer for the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office who represented Malott, argued the case was unique in that it involved sensitive financial details about children in the family as well as shareholders of a private company. And, she said, confidentiality orders the judge had previously issued were violated, warranting more steps to protect information at trial.
“This information is particularly sensitive,” Sullivan told the court.
But the justices questioned why this case should be treated differently from other cases that also feature testimony of a personal nature.
“This would just cause chaos throughout the state with judges limiting what could be reported,” said Appeals Court Judge Linda Vanzi, who participated in place of Chief Justice Judith Nakamura. Nakamura, who formerly served alongside Malott on the 2nd Judicial District Court, recused herself.
Charles Peifer, a lawyer representing the Journal, said such restrictions would run counter to the principle that the state’s courts are open.
The Journal’s editorial board has written that the newspaper has no interest in reporting the details that Malott sought to keep secret.
“The issue here isn’t that the Journal intends or wants to present Abruzzo family financial details to the public. We don’t,” stated an editorial in the newspaper in April. “But when a judge tramples on the First Amendment in the way that Malott has, it is a dangerous precedent that should concern us all.”
After about an hour of oral arguments, the justices deliberated briefly before returning to the bench and announcing they would strike down Malott’s order.
Justice Petra Jimenez Maes offered little explanation in announcing the ruling. Peifer later said the ruling is important. “Judges cannot decide what the press and the public can report from what they learn in open court,” he said.