11/30/2616

12;23

4192134844

6TH

DISTRICT COA

PA<

01/84

COURT O f A P P E A L S
201 & NOV 3 0

WH:"U9

BERHVt QUILTEK

n F.RK Or CntlK--

IN T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY

S t a t e o f O h i o e x ret., N a t h a n i e l
L i v i n g s t o n , Jr.

Court of Appeals N o . L-16-1281

Relator
v.
Joshua W . L a n z i n g e r

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Respondent

Decided:

j ^ y g Q pnic

* * * * *

T h i s m a t t e r is b e f o r e tile c o u r t o n relator's, N a t h a n i e l L i v i n g s t o n , Jr., N o v e m b e r

2 2 , 2 0 1 6 p e t i t i o n for w r i t s o f p r o h i b i t i o n a n d m a n d a m u s a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t , H o n . J o s h u a
L a n z i n g e r . I n h i s p e t i t i o n , r e l a t o r a l l e g e s that r e s p o n d e n t r e m o v e d r e l a t o r from t h e
c o u r t r o o m , a n d p r e v e n t e d r e l a t o r from o b s e r v i n g v o i r d i r e i n t h e c r i m i n a l trial o f J a m i l l e
KinnebreWi which, b e g a n o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 . After t h e j u r y w a s selected, r e l a t o r w a s
a l l o w e d t o r e t u r n t o t h e c o u r t r o o m , a n d o b s e r v e d t h e first t h r e e w i t n e s s e s . D u r i n g a b r e a k
following, t h o s e w i t n e s s e s , r e l a t o r o v e r h e a r d t h e p r o s e c u t o r , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , a n d
r e s p o n d e n t ' s l a w c l e r k t a l k i n g a b o u t an allegation t h a t r e l a t o r h a d d i s c u s s e d t h e p r i o r
t e s t i m o n y w i t h a w i t n e s s , f o l l o w i n g t h e break, r e s p o n d e n t t o o k t h e b e n c h a n d

l.C
[-JOURNALIZED
NOV 8 0 2 0 1 6

11/30/2018 TOD 11^28 AM [ T I / R I NO 8888]

I

8)0001

11/30/2016

12:23

4192134844

6TH DISTRICT COA

PAGE

02/04

admonished relator that the court had ordered a sepatatio'n o f witnesses, and that relator
w o u l d be r e m o v e d from the courtroom if he did not o b e y that order. Relator responded
that he w a s not a w i t n e s s and thus w a s not subject to the separation order, and mat he had
a constitutional right t o observe the trial, speak to witnesses and sources, and publish his .
findings.

Relator a l l e g e s that respondent then excluded h i m from the courtroom o n the

grounds o f v i o l a t i o n o f the separation order. Notably, relator states that the trial is
scheduled to e n d o n either N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 , or N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 . 1
In his petition, relator s e e k s a writ o f prohibition prohibiting respondent from, ( i )
requiring relator t o abide b y the separation order, and ( 2 ) e x c l u d i n g relator from voir dire
and the trial proceedings. Alternatively, relator seeks a .writ o f mandamus ordering
respondent ( 1 ) t o a l l o w relator to observe the proceedings, and ( 2 ) t o release a c o p y o f the
transcribed portion o f the record o f the trial on N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 * and N o v e m b e r 22,
2016, as well as a c o p y o f all evidence introduced or reviewed.
Initially, w e n o t e mat "prohibition is the appropriate form o f action to prevent the
enforcement o f an order barring the public and members o f the press from the
courtroom." State ex rel. The Repository,

Dlv. of Thompson

Newspapers,

Inc. v.

Unger,

2 8 Ohio S t 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 1 9 , 5 0 4 N . E . 2 d 37 (1986). Further, jurisdiction is not defeated

simply because the orders w h i c h are the subject of this action m a y h a v e terminated. A s
stated by the Ohio S u p r e m e Court,

Relator also notes that h e is interested in attending the trial o f Terri Grier in a related
case, w h i c h is currently set for a suppression .bearing before Judge Christiansen o n
December 13, 2 0 1 6 .

2.

11/30/2018 WED 11:27 AM [TX/RX NO 8.888]

El0002

11/30/2016

12:23

4192134844

6TH DISTRICT CDA

PAGE

03/04

Court hearings and trials are generally o f short duratioh. A courtroom

closure order issued in connection with a hearing br trial w i l l normally
expire before an appellate court can decide its validity. Yet, it can
reasonably b e a s s u m e d that [relator] will be subject to a similar closure
ofder in the future. * * * Therefore, this case is not m o o t since these issues
arc "capable o f repetition, yet evading review." Id. at 4 1 9 - 4 2 0 , quoting
Press-Enterprise

Co. v. Superior

Court, 4 7 8 U . S . 1 , 6 , 1 0 6 S.Ct. 2 7 3 5 , 9 2

L . E d 2 d 1 (1986).
"[TJhe public (including the press) has a need and right t o h a v e o p e n courts. What
transpires in the courtroom is public property, * * * and attendance at a public trial
promotes fairness a n d enhances public confidence in the judicial s y s t e m . " (Internal
Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Dispatch
628 N.E.id.1368 (1994).

,,

Printing

Co. v. Lias, 6 8 O h i o St.3d 4 9 7 , 502,

T h c principle that justice cannot survive b e h i n d w a l l s o f

silence has l o n g b e e n reflected in the Anglo-American distrust for secret trials."

quoting Richmond

Newspapers,

Id.,

Inc. v. Virginia, 4 4 8 U . S . 555, 574, 100 S.Ct. 2 8 1 4 , 6 5

L.Ed.2d 9 7 3 , fh. 9 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . "This right o f access to court proceedings, h o w e v e r , is not

absolute." Unger at 4 2 1 . "Nevertheless, 'exclusion o f the public Should b e applied
sparingly.'" Id, quoting State v. Lane, 6 0 Ohio St.2d 1 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 3 9 7 N . E . 2 d 1338 (1979).
"The public and press c a n b e barred from criminal proceedings o n l y in limited
circumstances. ' T h e presumption o f o p e n n e s s may b e o v e r c o m e o n l y b y an overriding
interest based o n findings that closure is essential to preserve higher v a l u e s and is

11/30/2018 WED 11:27 AM [TT/RI NO 8888]

210003

11/30/2016

14:24

4192134844
6TH DISTRICT COA

narrowly tailored t o s e r v e that interest'" Id:, quoting Press-Enterprise

Court of California,

PAGE

Co. v.

Superior

4 6 4 U . S . 5 0 1 , 5 1 0 , 1 0 4 S.Ct. 819, 7 8 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 9 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

Therefore, pursuant t o R.C. 2 7 3 1 . 0 6 a n d R . C . 2 7 3 1 . 0 7 , this court issues an

alternative writ and orders that respondent, b y D e c e m b e r 9 . 2 0 1 6 , either d o the act
requested by relator in the petition or s h o w cause w h y h e i s not required t o d o s o by filing
an answer t o relator's petition pursuant t o CiV.R.. 8(B) or a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s relator's
petition pursuant t o C i v . R . 12. Thereafter, this case shall p r o c e e d pursuant t o the Ohio
Rules o f Civil Procedure,
T o the clerk: M a n n e r o f service.
T h e clerk o f court, w h o m the court hereby specially authorizes t o perfect service
in this case, shall i m m e d i a t e l y serve, u p o n respondent, H o n . Joshua W . Lanzinger, b y
personal service, a c o p y o f this alternative writ pursuant t o R.C. 2 7 3 1 . 0 8 , and the clerk
shall verify,-by affidavit, the time, place, and manner o f service a n d file s u c h verification
upon completion o f t h e service.
The clerk is further directed to imniediately serve u p o n all other parties a copy o f
this alternative writ i n a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).
It is s o ordered.

Mark L . Pjetrvkowski, J,
Arlene Singer. J.
Thomas J. O s o w i k . J.
CONCUR.

11/30/2018 WED 1:27 PM

[TX/RX NO 8896]

0001

81/01