pretrial suppression hearing in Montana

2006In Smith, this Court held that a pretrial suppression hearing could be excluded from the public eye “only if dissemination of information acquired at the hearing would create a clear and present danger to the fairness of defendant’s trial and no reasonable alternative means can be utilized to avoid the prejudicial effect of such information.” Smith, 201 Mont. at 385 , 654 P.2d at 987 . ¶26 I acknowledge that in Great Falls Tribune Co., Inc. v. Great Falls Pub.

2006In Smith, this Court held that a pretrial suppression hearing could be excluded from the public eye “only if dissemination of information acquired at the hearing would create a clear and present danger to the fairness of defendant’s trial and no reasonable alternative means can be utilized to avoid the prejudicial effect of such information.” Smith, 201 Mont. at 385 , 654 P.2d at 987 . ¶26 I acknowledge that in Great Falls Tribune Co., Inc. v. Great Falls Pub.

1989In The Missoulian v. Board of Regents (1984), 207 Mont. 513 , 675 P.2d 962, 967 , the Board of Regents was required to balance the public’s right to know against the individual’s right of privacy with respect to employment evaluations.

1989In The Missoulian v. Board of Regents (1984), 207 Mont. 513 , 675 P.2d 962, 967 , the Board of Regents was required to balance the public’s right to know against the individual’s right of privacy with respect to employment evaluations.

2006Schools, 255 Mont. 125 , 841 P.2d 502 (1992), this Court concluded that “pursuant to the clear language of Article II, Section 9, meetings may be closed only when the need for individual privacy exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” Great Falls Pub.

2006Schools, 255 Mont. 125 , 841 P.2d 502 (1992), this Court concluded that “pursuant to the clear language of Article II, Section 9, meetings may be closed only when the need for individual privacy exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” Great Falls Pub.

1989The holding in Smith modified, to some extent, our previous holding in Great Falls Tribune v. District Court, supra, which adopted a strict and irreparable necessity stándard for closure, “where the demands of individual privacy clearly exceeded the merits of public disclosure.” 186 Mont, at 441 , 608 P.2d at 119 .

1989The holding in Smith modified, to some extent, our previous holding in Great Falls Tribune v. District Court, supra, which adopted a strict and irreparable necessity stándard for closure, “where the demands of individual privacy clearly exceeded the merits of public disclosure.” 186 Mont, at 441 , 608 P.2d at 119 .

1982We reaffirmed our position in the later case of State v. Buckley (1976), 171 Mont. 238 , 557 P.2d 283 , where we upheld the use of testimony at a pretrial suppression hearing to impeach the defendant at trial.

1982We reaffirmed our position in the later case of State v. Buckley (1976), 171 Mont. 238 , 557 P.2d 283 , where we upheld the use of testimony at a pretrial suppression hearing to impeach the defendant at trial.

1980The question for the trial court, therefore, in considering a motion to close a pretrial suppression hearing is whether a fair trial for the defendant is likely to be jeopardized by publicity, if members of the press and public are present and free to report prejudicial evidence that will not be presented to the jury.” 99 S.Ct. at 2916 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 634 .

1980The question for the trial court, therefore, in considering a motion to close a pretrial suppression hearing is whether a fair trial for the defendant is likely to be jeopardized by publicity, if members of the press and public are present and free to report prejudicial evidence that will not be presented to the jury.” 99 S.Ct. at 2916 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 634 .

1976Third, defendant cites Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1259 , as authority that the prosecution cannot use defendant’s testimony.at a pretrial suppression hearing to impeach the defendant’s credibility.

1976Third, defendant cites Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1259 , as authority that the prosecution cannot use defendant’s testimony.at a pretrial suppression hearing to impeach the defendant’s credibility.