connection with and has been applied to the First Amendment right of access, not to the common law right of access. PNI's submission, surprisingly, does not contain any reference to the experience and logic test as formulated by the Supreme Court. PNI is requested to explain why it has not even mentioned this doctrine and to comment on it in a supplemental brief. 7 . See supra pages 625-26 (summarizing factors). 8 . Also relevant are Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17, on remand, 98 Wash.2d 226, 654 P.2d 673 (1982), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1230, 104 S.Ct. 2690, 81 L.Ed.2d 884 (1984) (concluding that the First Amendment does not require open access to discovery materials); Gannett v. De-Pasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435
recognizing that we can consider trial evidence in reviewing the denial of a pretrial suppression motion holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing holding that the press and public can be constitutionally excluded from a pretrial suppression hearing holding that the erroneous failure to hold a pretrial competency hearing can be cured by a meaningful retrospective hearing holding that time excluded from a speedy trial clock for pretrial motion preparation is not automatically excluded under  3161h1 but may only be excluded when a court makes appropriate reasonableness findings under  3161h7