News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

Ethan C. Nobles, The Morning News

Outside of juvenile proceedings, state law keeps records and hearings open, and judges prefer that, an Arkansas Supreme Court justice said.

Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber spoke to journalism students at the University of Arkansas on Thursday about the state Freedom of Information Act and its relevance to attorneys and the media.

Photo by Charles Bickford, The Morning News Annabelle Clinton Imber, a member of the Arkansas Supreme Court, speaks Thursday to journalism students at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

Imber said she has some knowledge of law and its impact on the media from her time as a judge and her time spent representing the former Arkansas Democrat in Little Rock while she was practicing law.

Imber explained that the Freedom of Information Act gives individuals the right to receive public documents and sit in on government proceedings. An exception to that, she said, is juvenile court.

“Let me tell you, ... when there is a juvenile proceeding, their names don’t get in the paper. You will get nailed for that,” she said. “But they’re the only ones.”

Imber added that is not the case for juveniles who are charged criminally as adults, as those defendants are treated like others in circuit court. As for excluding the media from court proceedings, Imber said judges are very reluctant to seal them.

“The parties that want it sealed are going to have to really point out that someone will be seriously damaged,” she explained. “Judges are very, very skittish about sealing.”

In criminal proceedings, Imber said, judges generally won’t exclude the public from them unless there is a strong showing that a fair trial cannot be had otherwise.

“There is a tension between the right of the defendant to have a fair trial and the public’s right to know about the trial,” she said.

Some attorneys, Imber said, have trouble dealing with the Freedom of Information Act when they are representing a public agency because the items those lawyers use to prepare for the case are generally subject to disclosure. Normally, Imber said, lawyers can keep such items to themselves under attorney-client privilege and certain procedural rules.

Imber also took some time to mention an antitrust lawsuit filed in the mid-1980s by the now-defunct Arkansas Gazette against the Democrat. In that lawsuit, Imber explained, it was alleged that the Democrat had violated federal antitrust law by distributing free newspapers and slashing advertising rates to such a level that the newspaper was losing money.

The Democrat prevailed in that trial, Imber said, adding that the win paved the way for the newspaper’s buyout of the assets of the Gazette after its owner, Gannett Co. Inc., closed it in the fall of 1991.

She speculated that, if the Democrat had not won, it wouldn’t exist now, adding that she was one of the lawyers representing the Democrat in that case.

Imber also mentioned libel law in Arkansas, explaining that the definitions of who is a public official are not always clear and what constitutes libel is also hazy. She pointed out that the state Supreme Court, when considering such issues, has typically been divided in opinion.

“There’s stuff to talk about,” she said. “There’s stuff to debate. This is not black and white.”

Imber added that the majority of defamation cases have been tossed out of court because the plaintiff advanced a complaint in which there were no grounds for relief.x

x