|
Access to courts: What you should doAdvance knowledge and planning is very important in court closure cases. Try to anticipate a closure. Preventing closure may be easier than convincing a judge to reopen a closed hearing. Find out whether any party in the case has filed or plans to file a closure motion. If so, consult your editor and determine whether the news organization's lawyer should oppose the motion immediately. If a judge orders you to leave a hearing that to that point had been public, you may have to take immediate action.
If you learn that a secret court proceeding is in progress or has already been held, try to determine:
If you decide to seek access to the proceeding, or to a transcript if the proceeding has concluded, the simplest and most direct approach is to request a meeting with the judge. Pointing out the procedural requirements mandated by the Supreme Court may be sufficient to convince the judge to reconsider the closure. In addition to requesting access to future proceedings, you should ask the judge to make available transcripts of past proceedings and any documents that may have been introduced.36 You might be able to convince the judge to give you the transcript because you were deprived of access to a hearing that should have been public. Be prepared to pay for it. On the other hand, if the judge has decided to go forward in secrecy, you will need assistance from your organization's lawyer. The Supreme Court and other courts have said that the media may intervene in a criminal or civil case for the limited purpose of asserting their First Amendment rights.37 In addition to filing a motion to intervene, your lawyer might file a motion seeking a stay of further proceedings in the underlying case until resolution of the access issue. If the judge denies the motion to intervene or, after hearing argument, continues holding closed proceedings, you may want to consider an appeal. Your lawyer will be able to advise you on the best method of obtaining expeditious review of the decision.
Notes 36. See, e.g., United States v. Kaczynski, 154 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming the media's right of access to a redacted psychiatric report of convicted "Unabomber" Theodore Kaczynski; the court reasoned that the public's interest in the disclosure of the report outweighed Kaczynski's right to privacy). 37. See, e.g., Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994).
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press © 2003 RCFP. 1815 N. Fort Myer Dr., Suite 900, Arlington VA 22209 (703) 807-2100 |