PROVIDENCE — The state Supreme Court on Friday rejected The Providence Journal’s bid to gain access to questionnaires prospective jurors filled out in a criminal case stemming from the Station nightclub fire that killed 100 people in 2003.

The Journal sought the release of 421 questionnaires completed by potential jurors in the case of Michael A. Derderian, a co-owner of the West Warwick nightclub who was charged with 200 counts of involuntary manslaughter in the deadly blaze.

But the high court ruled Friday that the issue was moot because Derderian’s case ended without a trial and because it is unlikely the circumstances like the Station fire will arise again.

Kristin E. Rodgers, who argued for The Journal before the high court in December, viewed the decision as a missed chance for the court to assist judges in balancing freedom of the press with rights of future defendants and the privacy interests of jurors.

“The question was not whether the tragic circumstances of the Station fire will ever be repeated, but it was whether trial justices are going to use jury questionnaires in the future … ” Rodgers said. “We’re disappointed because this was an opportunity to properly guide the trial judges on the use of jury questionnaires.”

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, whose office fought The Journal’s appeal, was pleased, according to his spokesman. “The decision is saying the point is moot because the case is over,” said Michael J. Healey. “A practical outcome of it though is that the court is recognizing the legitimate privacy interests of jurors and prospective jurors.”

Three people were criminally charged after the February 2003 fire: the manager of the band who set off the pyrotechnics that sparked the fire inside the packed nightclub and the two club owners, brothers Michael A. and Jeffrey A. Derderian, who installed flammable foam to soundproof the building. All faced 200 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

To speed jury selection in Michael’s case, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan Jr. had prospective jurors complete a 32-page questionnaire instead of being questioned in open court. It warned on its cover page that the answers would not be confidential, but told potential jurors to indicate which responses were private.

But the Derderians pleaded no contest and their trials never took place. The Journal sought the release of the 421 questionnaires — 200 of which lawyers had reviewed — under the principle that the public has the constitutional right to observe jurors being questioned in open court.

The paper asserted the prospective jurors’ opinions should be public, since they might have motivated the Derderians’ plea agreement. Darigan said at the plea hearing it might have been difficult to seat an impartial jury.

The judge noted that lawyers had asked that more than 64 percent of the prospective jurors be dismissed based on their questionnaire responses.

State lawyers objected to the information’s release, arguing that it would make it harder to attract future jurors and that the case is moot because the Derderians didn’t go to trial.

Darigan gave the paper a blank questionnaire, but refused to release the completed forms. While recognizing the press and the public have “the presumptive right” to see jury questionnaires, Darigan cited “uniquely compelling situations” in sealing them in the Station fire case. He said the jurors were asked for “extremely personal and sensitive” information. The Journal appealed to the high court.

The Supreme Court Friday refused to consider the question in an opinion written by Justice Paul Suttell, Governor Carcieri’s chief justice nominee. The court dismissed the appeal, while acknowledging the weight of the Station fire case and the competing interests of First and Sixth Amendment rights at play. The decision noted the paper was seeking 13,472 pages, making any effort to redact portions of the questionnaires onerous for the court.

David M. Zlotnick, Roger Williams School of Law’s associate dean of academic affairs, said he understood the court’s thinking given that a trial never occurred, a jury was never picked, and the volume of material involved. But, the former federal prosecutor said, “They ducked the issue.”

“To say ‘go away, it’s moot’ is a really easy way of avoiding getting into the nitty gritty issues, which is what courts often do when they don’t want to wade into a sticky constitutional issue,” said Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

“From a legal standpoint I guess it’s moot, from a public interest standpoint” it leaves unanswered compelling issues such as whether an impartial jury even could have been seated in such a small state, she said. “We’ll never know.”

kmulvane@projo.com