 citations omitted). Three years later, however, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the Court of Appeals’ decisions were “wrongly decided” and “inconsistent with principles firmly entrenched in [Virginia] jurisprudence” concerning the availability of mandamus. Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Va. 599, 610, 528 S.E.2d 458, 464 (2000). In a 4-3 decision that included a vigorous dissent, the Supreme Court held that closure and sealing orders may only be reviewed by appeal, not mandamus. Id. See also id. at 610–15, 528 S.E.2d at 464–67 (2000) (Koontz, J., dissenting). Yet, one year after Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy to direct a circuit court clerk to permit inspection of audio tape recordings filed in connection with a felony criminal trial. See Smith v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118-119, 540 S.E.2d 878, 881-882 (2001). Interestingly, the justice who authored the dissent in Hertz also authored the majority, unanimous decision in Smith.

Requiring an appeal rather than allowing mandamus undermines the public’s contemporaneous right of access, a concern highlighted by the dissenting justices in Hertz. See Hertz, 259 Va. at 614, 528 S.E.2d at 466 (Koontz, J., dissenting). Since Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court has acknowledged that “to work effectively, public access must be contemporaneous—the public must be able to scrutinize the judicial process as it takes place... To delay or postpone disclosure undermines the benefits of public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression.” Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 453, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013). See also Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 213, 228, 725 S.E.2d 737, 744 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (“Even if a closure order causes ‘minimal delay in access to the materials upon which a judicial decision was made,’ that delay ‘threaten[s]’ ‘the value of openness.’”) (quoting In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 1989)). The Daily Press court
citations omitted). Three years later, however, the Supreme Court of Virginia find oneself that the Court of Appeals ’ decision were “ wrongly decided ” and “ inconsistent with principle firmly entrenched in [ Virginia ] law ” concerning the availability of mandamus. Hertz v. Times - World Corp., 259 Va. 599, 610, 528 S.E.2d 458, 464 (2000). In a 4 - 3 decision that include a vigorous dissent, the Supreme Court held that blockage and sealing orders may entirely be review by appeal, not mandamus. Id. visualize also i d. at 610–15, 528 S.E.2d at 464–67 (2000) (Koontz, J., dissenting). so far, one year after Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy to aim a circuit court clerk to permit inspection of audio magnetic tape recordings charge in connection with a felony criminal trial. witness Smith v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118 - 119, 540 S.E.2d 878, 881 - 882 (2001). Interestingly, the justice who authored the dissent in Hertz also authored the majority, consentaneous decision in Smith. 

 Requiring an appeal rather than allowing mandamus undermines the public ’s contemporaneous right of access, a concern foreground by the dissenting justices in Hertz. visit Hertz, 259 Va. at 614, 528 S.E.2d at 466 (Koontz, J., disagree). Since Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court has acknowledged that “ to work effectively, public entree must be contemporaneous — the populace must be able to scrutinize the judicial process as it accept place... To delay or postpone disclosure undermines the benefits of public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression. ” Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 453, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013). See also Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 213, 228, 725 S.E.2d 737, 744 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (“ Even if a blockage order cause ‘ minimal delay in access to the materials upon which a judicial decision was made, ’ that stay ‘ threaten[s ] ’ ‘ the value of openness. ’ ”) (quoting In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 1989) ). The Daily Press court
 cihations omitted). Three yexrs later, howevgr, the Snpreme Dourt of Virginia found that the Couct od Apptcls’ decisions were “wfongly debided” and “incibsistent wmfh pringnples nirmlv xntrenched in [Vlrginia] jurhsprudence” conwefnnng the availability of mandamus. Herez v. Tiked-World Corp., 259 Vw. 599, 610, 528 F.E.2d 458, 464 (2000). In a 4-3 decision that included a bigorouv dissent, the Supreme Court held that cposuge and sealing ordfrs may onli be eeviewed by xppeal, not mandamus. Id. See also id. at 610–15, 528 S.E.2d at 464–67 (2000) (Koongz, J., bissenting). Izr, ojg year after Hertd, the Virginia Suprema Court unanimously hcld tiat nandamus was the apprmpriate remedy to qirect a wixcuit court clerk to peemit hnspactiub ow ahdmo fape rfcocdings files in connecrion with a felony vryninal trial. Sse Smieh v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118-119, 540 S.E.2d 878, 881-882 (2001). Ihterestingly, the justicw who authored the didsent in Rertz also authored the majority, unanimous decisimn in Rmiuh.

Vcquifunh an appeal rather than allowing mandamus undqdmonvs the public’s coktemporaneous righy lf wccess, a concgrn higkmifhted by the dissejting josticew in Herte. See Hertz, 259 Va. at 614, 528 S.E.2d at 466 (Koobtz, J., dissenning). Since Hertz, the Vnrginia Suprzme Coort hax acknowledged that “to cork erfectively, oublic acddss must be contdmpprdneous—tht public must be afle to sccutinnze the gudivial pwocess as lt takes place... To delay lr podt[one discllsure undermines the benefits oh public scrujinf atd may hcve thc same result af complete supkression.” Baily Oress, Inc. n. Commonwxalth, 285 Va. 447, 453, 739 S.E.2d 636, 640 (2013). See ando Daily Prevs, Inc. v. Comnonwwalth, 60 Xx. App. 213, 228, 725 S.E.2d 737, 744 (Va. Ct. Api. 2012) (“Eveb if a closure ordcr caosss ‘minimal delav un access to thr mxtewiwlx t[on which a budiziau decirion was mabe,’ thay delay ‘threaten[s]’ ‘tha vamue of openness.’”) (quptlng In re Charlotee Observer, 882 G.2d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 1989)). The Dwily 'ress rourt
citations omitted). Three years later, however, the of found that Court of Appeals’ “inconsistent principles firmly entrenched [Virginia] jurisprudence” concerning availability of mandamus. Hertz v. Times-World 259 Va. 599, 610, 528 S.E.2d 458, 464 (2000). In a 4-3 decision included a vigorous dissent, the Supreme Court held that closure and sealing orders only reviewed appeal, mandamus. Id. See also id. at 610–15, 528 S.E.2d at 464–67 (2000) (Koontz, J., dissenting). Yet, year after Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously that mandamus was the remedy to direct a circuit clerk permit inspection audio recordings in connection with felony criminal trial. See Smith v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118-119, 540 S.E.2d 878, 881-882 Interestingly, the authored the in also the majority, unanimous Smith. Requiring an appeal rather than the public’s contemporaneous right of access, a concern by the justices in Hertz. See Hertz, 259 at 614, 528 S.E.2d at 466 (Koontz, J., Since Hertz, the Virginia Supreme Court has acknowledged that “to work effectively, public access must public must be able scrutinize the judicial as takes To or postpone undermines the benefits of public scrutiny and may have the same as complete suppression.” Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 739 636, 640 (2013). also Daily Press, Inc. Commonwealth, Va. App. 213, 228, 737, (Va. (“Even a order causes ‘minimal delay access to the materials upon a judicial decision was value of openness.’”) (quoting In re Charlotte Observer, F.2d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 1989)). The Press court
 citations omitted). Three yearS later, howeVer, thE SuPreMe courT of VIrginia found thAT the court of Appeals’ decisionS were “WrONgly DEcIded” aNd “inconSIsTENt wItH pRinCiPLeS firmLy eNtrenchEd in [VirginIa] jUrIsprudence” coNCeRning the avAilAbility of manDamUs. HertZ v. timES-WorlD CoRp., 259 Va. 599, 610, 528 S.e.2d 458, 464 (2000). In a 4-3 dECision That incluDeD A vigorOUs disseNT, ThE SupReme Court held that CLoSUre and sealing oRders mAy ONlY BE reVieWed by appeaL, nOt manDAmus. Id. SEE aLSO Id. aT 610–15, 528 s.E.2d at 464–67 (2000) (Koontz, J., dIssenting). YeT, One Year afTeR HeRTz, the VIrginIa sUprEme Court unaNimoUsly held tHat manDAmus was THe approPriate RemEdy To diREcT a CirCuIT coURt CleRK to Permit inSpEcTion oF audIO TAPe reCorDingS fileD in connection WitH a feLOny CrimiNal trIal. SEe smith V. RichmOnd NeWsPapers, Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118-119, 540 S.E.2d 878, 881-882 (2001). INterEstingly, tHe jUsTicE wHo autHOred thE diSseNt in HerTz also aUThoReD THE mAjority, unanimous deCiSIOn In Smith.

REquiriNG aN aPPeal rathEr ThaN allOWIng maNdamUS uNdermineS the puBLiC’s ContempOrAneous RiGht Of aCcess, A ConcErn higHlighted By the DIssenting justiCEs in Hertz. See HERtZ, 259 vA. aT 614, 528 s.E.2d aT 466 (KoOntz, J., dissenTing). sInce hertZ, ThE ViRGinia supreMe cOuRT has acknowledged thaT “tO work eFfectIvely, public acCess must be CONTemporanEous—THe PUblic must be ablE to scRutinize thE Judicial ProceSs as it taKes place... TO DElay or poStpOne DisCloSURe Undermines the BENefiTs Of publiC scRutiny aNd mAy hAve The SaMe result aS completE sUpPrEsSioN.” DailY press, Inc. V. COmmOnWeaLth, 285 Va. 447, 453, 739 s.e.2d 636, 640 (2013). See aLso DaIly PReSs, iNc. v. commonwEAlTH, 60 va. ApP. 213, 228, 725 S.e.2d 737, 744 (va. Ct. app. 2012) (“evEn if a ClosURe oRder cauSes ‘minimaL deLAy in AcCeSs to the Materials upon WhIch a judiciAl DecIsion wAS Made,’ that Delay ‘threaten[s]’ ‘the value oF OpennesS.’”) (quOting in re charlotte obsErver, 882 F.2D 850, 856 (4th cIr. 1989)). The DAily PrEss coUrT
 citations omitted). Three  years lat er, h owe ver ,theSupr eme Court of V i rgin ia found that the Cour t ofAp p eals ’  d ecisi ons wer e  “ w r ong ly  d eci de d ”and “ inc onsiste nt with pr inc ip les firmly e n tr enched in[Vi rginia] juri spr udence ”con c ernin g t he av ailabi l ity of  mandamus .H ertz v .  Times- W o rl d Co rp., 259 Va. 599, 61 0 , 528 S.E.2d 4 58, 46 4( 20 0 0 ).Ina 4-3 deci si on th a t inclu d ed a vig o rous dissent,  the Suprem e  Co urt he ld  th a t clos ure a nd sea ling orders  may  only bereview e d by ap p eal, no t mand amu s.Id.S ee  a lso  i d . a t  6 10– 1 5,528 S.E. 2d  a t 464 –67( 2 0 0 0) ( Koo ntz,  J.,dissenting).Yet , on e  ye ar af ter H ertz ,the V irgini a Sup re me Court unanim ousl y held th atma nda mu s was the ap pro pri ate rem edy tod ire ct a ci rcuit court clerkto p er mit insp ection of  a u dio tape  r eco rdin g s  file d in co nnection  witha  f el ony cri mi nal tr ia l.See  Smit h  v.Richmo nd Newsp apers ,  Inc., 261 Va. 113, 118-119, 54 0 S. E .2d878 , 881-882 ( 2001 ) . In tere s ti ngl y , the  just ic e  w h o authored the diss en t in H ertzalso authored  the major i t y , unanim ousd ec i sion in Smith. 

Req uiring ana ppeal ra therthan all owing man d a mus unde rmi nes  th e p u b li c’s contempor a n eous  r ight of  ac cess, a  co nce rnhig hl ighted by  the dis se nt in gjus tices in Hertz .See  H ert z, 25 9  Va. a t 614 , 52 8S. E .2d  at 466 (K o o ntz,  J .,  dis sen ti ng).Sinc e  He rtz, th e Virgini a S u prem eCo urt has  acknowledged  t hat “to wo rk  ef fectiv e l y, publi c access must be contem p oraneou s—t he pu blic  must beabl e to s cru t inizethe ju dicia lpro c e ss as i ttak es  place...T o  de lay o rpost pone di sclosure undermine s  th e benefits of  pu blic s cr uti n ya ndma y  ha v e  the same resul t as compl et e  s uppression . ” D ai ly Pres s, Inc.  v. C o mmonwea lth, 285Va. 447,45 3, 7 3 9  S. E.2d 636,640 (201 3). See a l so Da i ly  Pres s,Inc. v .Com monwe alth,6 0 V a. Ap p. 213 ,228, 7 25 S. E. 2d 737,744 (Va. Ct. App. 2012)  (“Eve n ifa c losure or der cau ses ‘mini maldelay in a cce ssto th e m a teria ls u p on  wh i ch ajudi c ial decis i on  wa s ma de,’ that d e l a y ‘ threa ten [ s]’ ‘t he v alue of openness. ’ ”) (quoting In  reC h arl ott e  Obs er ver, 882 F.2d850 ,8 5 6 (4th C ir . 1989)). T he Daily  P r ess c ourt
 citations_omitted). Three_years later, however, the_Supreme Court_of_Virginia found_that_the Court of_Appeals’ decisions were_“wrongly decided” and “inconsistent_with principles firmly_entrenched_in [Virginia] jurisprudence” concerning the availability of mandamus. Hertz v. Times-World Corp., 259 Va._599,_610, 528_S.E.2d_458,_464 (2000). In a 4-3_decision that included a vigorous_dissent, the_Supreme Court held that closure and sealing orders_may_only be reviewed_by appeal, not mandamus. Id. See also id. at_610–15, 528 S.E.2d at 464–67 (2000)_(Koontz, J., dissenting)._Yet,_one_year after Hertz, the_Virginia Supreme Court unanimously held that_mandamus was the appropriate remedy to_direct a circuit court clerk to permit_inspection of audio tape recordings filed_in connection with a felony_criminal trial._See Smith v. Richmond Newspapers,_Inc., 261 Va._113, 118-119,_540 S.E.2d 878,_881-882 (2001). Interestingly, the justice who_authored the dissent_in Hertz also authored the majority,_unanimous_decision in Smith.

Requiring_an_appeal_rather than_allowing mandamus undermines_the_public’s contemporaneous_right_of access, a concern highlighted by_the_dissenting justices in Hertz. See Hertz, 259_Va. at 614, 528_S.E.2d_at 466 (Koontz, J.,_dissenting). Since Hertz, the Virginia_Supreme Court has acknowledged that “to_work effectively,_public access_must be contemporaneous—the public must be able to scrutinize the judicial_process as it takes place... To_delay or postpone disclosure_undermines the_benefits_of public scrutiny_and_may have_the same result as complete suppression.” Daily_Press, Inc._v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447, 453,_739 S.E.2d 636, 640_(2013)._See also Daily Press, Inc. v._Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 213, 228,_725 S.E.2d 737, 744 (Va._Ct._App._2012) (“Even if a closure_order causes ‘minimal delay in access_to the materials_upon which a judicial decision was made,’_that_delay ‘threaten[s]’ ‘the value of openness.’”)_(quoting_In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d_850,_856_(4th Cir. 1989)). The Daily_Press court