01C

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

Overview

Alabama

In Alabama, in order for a presumptively open criminal proceeding to be closed, a court must make “specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and the closure order is narrowly tailored to serve those interests.” Ex parte Birmingham News Co., 624 So. 2d 1117, 1125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

Overview

Arkansas

Recognizing that the “right of public access is not absolute,” the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted a two-part test in Arkansas Television Co. v. Tedder, 662 S.W.2d 174, 176 (Ark.

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

Overview

Louisiana

The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered a motion to suppress hearing closed on the defendant’s motion, over a vigorous dissent by then-Justice Dennis (who now serves on the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), in State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135 (La. 1982). The Court held that, to justify closing a pre-trial hearing, the defendant “should only have to show a reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial.” Id. at 1136 (emphasis in original).

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

Overview

New York

See Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Leggett, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 446-47, 399 N.E.2d 518, 527-28 (1979) (citations omitted):

C. Overcoming a presumption of openness

Overview

MASTER

Where a constitutional presumption of access applies, the court may close proceedings only after making specific, on-the-record findings: (1) that closure is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest; (2) the closure order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest; and (3) that no less restrictive means are available to adequately protect that interest. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986); see also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S.