Access to Juvenile Courts
The 1990's: Juvenile Courts Proceedings and Records Continue to Be More Accessible to the Public
Courts have long recognized that criminal proceedings involving adults should be open. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized a presumption of openness for criminal trials in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 5455, 571-573 (1980), with Chief Justice Burger noting:
Although there is a strong presumption that criminal proceedings are open to the media and public, this First Amendment right of access is not absolute. 1 This presumption can be overcome by a showing that competing interests favor closed proceedings and records, such as when the media coverage will interfere with the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial. 2
By contrast, juvenile courts traditionally have been closed to the public. 3 As a policy matter, it was believed that youthful offenders should not be stigmatized forever because of one mistake. Another justification for secrecy was promoting rehabilitation of the youthful offender. For example, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a statute closing juvenile proceedings to the public, holding that publication of information about youthful offenders could impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system. 4
But high profile crimes involving minors, such as the March 1998 schoolyard shooting tragedy in Jonesboro, Ark., have led to changes in public attitudes about the juvenile justice system and a youthful offender's right to privacy. The rise in juvenile crime rates, coupled with widespread media coverage of violent crimes committed by juveniles, has created a public perception that the nation is under attack. This perception has not only driven many states to prosecute more juveniles as adults, but also open more juvenile proceedings and records to the public and to impose heavier sentences on juveniles. 5
This recent increase in violent crimes committed by juveniles has caused a shift from goals of rehabilitation to those of retribution and deterrence. Many states have opened juvenile proceedings to the public when a minor is charged with a violent cri me that incites community outrage.
For example, court records and proceedings involving youths charged with offenses that would be considered felonies if committed by adults are public in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah, and Virginia. 6 In Florida, a law enforcement agency may release the name, picture and address of a child charged with an offense which would constitute a felony. 7
In California, the public can be admitted to hearings when a juvenile is alleged to have committed "felony criminal street gang activity," such as carjacking or drive-by shooting. 8 In Illinois, the public has a right of access to th e name and address of a juvenile who is at least 13 years old and has been criminally convicted of a serious crime or connected to criminal street gang activity. 9 A Pennsylvania statute allows public access in felony cases when the def endant is over 14, and when in enumerated serious felony cases the defendant is over 12, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, arson, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, kidnaping, rape, robbery, and carjacking. 10
In 1997, an amendment to New York State's court rules created an explicit presumption that Family Court proceedings are open to the public, and members of the public were admitted to several high-profile juvenile cases. 11 Subsequen tly, Westchester County Family Court Judge Howard Spitz in White Plains, permitted pool reporters to cover the proceedings involving Malcolm Shabazz, the 12-year-old grandson of Malcolm X. and Betty Shabazz. Malcolm was accused of setting a fire that resu lted in Betty Shabazz's death. Spitz said that the proceedings should be open to "preserve the integrity of public proceedings." 12
These are a few of the many examples found within this guide where the "tide has turned" and the legislatures and courts have allowed public access to juvenile offenders' hearings and records. According to the National Council of Juvenile and Family C ourt Judges:
Traditional notions of secrecy and confidentiality should be re-examined and relaxed to promote public confidence in the court's work. The public has a right to know how courts deal with children and families. The court should be open to the media, int erested professionals and students and, when appropriate, the public, in order to hold itself accountable, educate others, and encourage greater community participation. 13
Indeed, when a proceeding is open to public scrutiny, there is an opportunity to understand not only the workings of the court in a particular case, but the justice system as a whole. 14
In a transfer hearing, the juvenile court determines whether the juvenile should be prosecuted as an adult in criminal court. Transfer to adult courts and prisons allows for longer incarceration periods and places emphasis on retribution rather than r ehabilitation. 15 If a transfer is granted, the juvenile will have the right to a jury trial. In deciding whether to admit the public to transfer hearings, courts must consider such factors as whether pretrial publicity could jeopardiz e the minor's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
For example, an Alabama court found that an alleged violation of confidentiality laws by the media did not violate a juvenile's right to a fair hearing because in transfer hearings, the trial judge sits as the trier of fact. 16
In some states, the nature of the crime with which the juvenile is charged determines whether the media will be allowed to attend transfer hearings. In North Dakota, cases are transferred to adult courts if a juvenile is 16 and requests the transfer, or if a juvenile is 14 or older and has been charged with murder, attempted murder, certain sex crimes, or the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. 17 In Georgia, the juveni le justice laws automatically require any child 13 or older who is charged with murder to be tried as an adult. 18 In Virginia, any child 14 or older who is charged with murder is to be tried as an adult automatically. 19
Many states give individual courts great discretion to decide whether or not a transfer hearing will be open to the public. In Arizona, a judge may close a transfer hearing upon a finding of a need to protect the best interests of a victim, a witness, the state, or a clear public interest in confidentiality. 20 An Ohio court ruled that trial judges have the authority to admit the public and the news media to transfer hearings, because the statutory law provides only that the public "may" be excluded from juvenile hearings. 21 In a Texas capital murder case, the trial court's decision to admit the media but not the general public to the transfer hearing was upheld. 22
Access to juvenile court records
Most states consider juvenile court records to be confidential, and the public and media are denied access to them. However, many states have made exceptions for records of cases involving violent offenses or acts that would be felonies if committe d by an adult. Among these are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Washington. 23
In Tennessee, petitions and orders regarding juveniles at least 14 years old charged with violent offenses are open to the public. 24 In Kansas, court files are public if the juvenile was at least 14 years old at the time of the off ense. 25 In Utah, if a petition is filed charging a minor 14 years of age or older with an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the court shall make available to any person upon request the petition, any adjudicatio n or disposition orders, and the delinquency history summary of the minor charged unless the records are closed by the court upon findings on the record for good cause. 26
Some statutes may permit certain people, such as the juvenile who is the subject of the proceeding, the juvenile's attorney, the parent or guardian and people with a legitimate interest in the workings of the court or a particular case, to gain access to juvenile records. However, access is not automatic or unlimited, and under many statutes a court order first must be obtained.
Consequences of revealing identity
Even in those states that continue to limit access to juvenile proceedings, the media cannot be sanctioned for revealing a juvenile's identity if they lawfully obtained the information. 27 Also, when a defendant's picture and identi ty already have been revealed to the public, the court may not forbid the media from disseminating that information. 28
Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the contempt conviction of Delta Democrat Times reporter Cynthia Jeffries, who had written about a discussion of a criminal defendant's juvenile record in open court. 29 The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state may not punish the press for publishing legally-obtained information about a juvenile offender or victim. 30 In a recent case, the court held that a lower court's order which prevent ed the press from fully reporting on cases involving contributing to the delinquency of minors violated free-press rights and amounted to an "unlawful prior restraint." 31 Several Minnesota rulings have held that courts may not prohib it newspapers from publishing lawfully-obtained information regarding juvenile proceedings, including information obtained by news media in open court or from parties to the action. 32
An Alabama state court overturned the conviction of two newscasters for violating a state law that prohibits disclosure of information in juvenile records. They had broadcast the name of a juvenile charged with murder. Although the newspaper had obta ined the name from a confidential source, the judge reversed the lower court's ruling because the juvenile's name had been revealed before the broadcast in a bond hearing. 33 In 1996, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a television s tation's news report about a 15-year-old runaway whose puppy had been stolen and tortured did not constitute an invasion of privacy. The court found that the broadcast of the juvenile's identity and runaway status did not constitute an invasion of privac y because the public had a legitimate interest in the story. 34
Courts in Illinois may suppress publication of the identity of a juvenile only if it was obtained from a juvenile court proceeding. 35 Any restriction on information otherwise obtained is suspect and subject to strict scrutiny, espe cially where the proceedings have been deemed to be open. However, in general, the public cannot attend juvenile proceedings in Illinois. 36
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that statutes mandating the confidentiality of juvenile records and proceedings do not prohibit the media from disclosing information about the case, but only restrict press access to proceedings and records. 37 In Maine, even when court records are secret, the court cannot forbid publication of the information if a reporter has lawfully obtained access to the records. 38
In Rhode Island, if a media organization learns a juvenile's name from sources outside court proceedings, it may publish the name and attend the proceedings. However, if the organization learns of the name from a judicial source, the court can keep th e media out of the proceedings and forbid publication of the juvenile's identity. 39
Several states have criminal penalties for revealing confidential or sealed information about juveniles, including Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 40
In recent years, some states and courts have decided to allow cameras and recording devices into juvenile court proceedings. For example, in Georgia, a juvenile court rule provides that members of the media must get permission to use certain electronic or photographic equipment and the trial judge may require pooled coverage. Once permission is granted, all cameras should run without noise and the media should not film images of the delinquent child. The rule also requires that reporters, photographer s and technicians "should do everything possible to avoid attracting attention to themselves." 41 In Florida, a trial court held that print and broadcast media have a right to attend and the photograph detention hearing for juvenile ch arged with murdering his parents, but they cannot take or broadcast the juvenile's face. 42
However, many states and courts refuse to allow cameras in juvenile court. In Tennessee, a court rule bars cameras from photographing minors and jurors and covering bench conferences. 43 In September 1998, a trial judge ordered came ras and audio recording devices banned from the trial of Michael Carneal, who was charged with killing three schoolmates and wounding five others in December 1997. The judge cited the need to protect several potential juvenile witnesses and to prevent wit nesses from dramatizing their testimonies. 44
Federal Courts - The Juvenile Delinquency Act
The Juvenile Delinquency Act 45 provides that the government may initiate juvenile delinquency proceedings in federal district court against people less than 21 years old who commit a federal offense before turning 18.
The law does not prohibit public access to federal juvenile proceedings in all cases; courts have discretion to determine closure on a case-by-case basis. 46
Under federal law, juvenile records are closed to the press and public until a transfer to criminal court has been
granted. No sanctions may be imposed on reporters who publish information
that was obtained at a juvenile proceeding. 47
In seeking access to juvenile proceedings and documents, journalists should examine their state constitutions and statutes, as well as the cases interpreting them.
In states where statutes do not clearly provide a right to attend juvenile proceedings, look for provisions granting judges the discretion to open them. If there is a clause allowing individuals with a legitimate interest in the case or the work of th e court to attend or inspect records, journalists can try to demonstrate that they have such an interest. If a juvenile offender already has been identified, journalists can argue that a closed proceeding would not restore anonymity.
Bear in mind that law governing access to juvenile courts is volatile, and some of the cases described here may have been overturned or statutes amended, modified or repealed since this booklet was prepared. Contact the Reporters Committee for further information.
The Reporters Committee is grateful to legal fellow Brad Lerner for his work in researching and updating this guide. His work built on the work of former interns and fellows.
(c) 1999 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced without the written permission of the Reporters Committee.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 807-2100
web: http://www.rcfp.org
e-mail: rcfp@rcfp.org
1
See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1 (1986); United States v. A.D., 28 F.3d 1353, 1357 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Simone, 14 F.3d 833, 840 (3d Cir. 1994).2 See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 9 (1986).
3 The United States Supreme Court has not found that juvenile proceedings are presumed to be open. In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 25 (1967), the United States Supreme Court stated, "There is no reason why, consistently wit h due process, a State cannot continue, if it deems it appropriate, to provide and to improve provision for the confidentiality of records of police contacts and court action relating to juveniles."
4 In Re J.S., 140 Vt. 458; 438 A.2d 1124 (1981). See also Brian W. v. Superior Court, 574 P.2d 788, 791 (Cal. 1978) ("The provisions for confidentiality in the juvenile court law . . . were included to prevent the underlying rehabilitative philosophy from being thwarted by unduly stigmatizing the juvenile offender."); In re J.D.C., 594 A.2d 70, 72 (D.C. 1991) ("The primary purpose . . . [for] providing that in general the public shall be excluded from juven ile proceedings, is to preserve the anonymity of juvenile respondents in order to foster an atmosphere conducive to rehabilitation"); Florida Publ'g Co. v. Morgan, 322 S.E.2d 233, 235-36 (Ga. 1984) ("The asserted state interest in the closure of th e hearing was the protection of the anonymity of the juvenile offender in order to further his or her rehabilitation."); In re T.R., 556 N.E.2d 439 (Ohio 1990) (aim of traditionally closed juvenile proceedings is rehabilitative); In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D. 1995) ("The purpose behind closed juvenile proceedings is to "protectively rehabilitate juveniles.'").
5 Danielle R. Oddo, Removing Confidentiality Protections and the "Get Tough" Rhetoric: What has Gone Wrong with the Juvenile Justice System?, 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 105, 105-106 (1998) (citations omitted).
6 Idaho Code § 20-525 (1998); Ind. Code Ann. § 31-32-6-3 (1998); Iowa Code Ann. § 232.150 (1997); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15 § 3307(2) (1997); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-818 (1998); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 260.155(1) (1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.171(6) (1998); Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-115 (1998); Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-302 (1998)
7 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 985.04 (1998).
8 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 676 (1999).
9 705 ICLS 405/1-8 (1998).
10 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 42 § 6336 (1998).
11 N.Y. C.L.S. Unif. Rules, Family Ct. § 205.4 (1998).
12 In re Shabazz, 662 N.Y.S.2d 207, 173 Misc.2d 656 (1997).
13 Danielle R. Oddo, Removing Confidentiality Protections and the "Get Tough" Rhetoric: What has Gone Wrong with the Juvenile Justice System?, 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 105, 120-121 (1998) (citations omitted).
14 See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980).
15 Danielle R. Oddo, Removing Confidentiality Protections and the "Get Tough" Rhetoric: What has Gone Wrong with the Juvenile Justice System?, 18 B.C. Third World L.J. 105, 114 (1998) (citations omitted).
16 C.S. v. State, 615 So.2d 1254 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
17 N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-34 (1999).
18 Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-5 (1998).
19 Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-269.1 (1998).
20 Ariz. Juv. Ct. R. P. 13(b) (1998).
21 State ex. rel. Fyffe v. Pierce, 40 Ohio St. 3d 8, 531 N.E.2d 673 (1988).
22 R.A.G. v. Texas, 870 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. 1993), error granted, judgment rev'd on other grounds, 866 S.W.2d. 199 (Tex. 1993).
23 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-309 (1997); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 389 (1999); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann § 19-1-302 (1998); Ga. Code. Ann. § 15-11-58 (1998); Ind. Code Ann. § 31-39-2-8 (1998); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 260.161(2) (1998); Mo. Rev . Stat. § 211.321 (1997); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7307-1.2 (1999); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33. § 5538 (1998); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 13.50.050 (1999).
24 Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-153 (1999).
25 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1607 (1997).
26 Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-206 (1999).
27 Smith v. Daily Mail, 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
28 Oklahoma Publishing v. District Ct. 430 U.S. 308 (1977).
29 Jeffries v. Mississippi, 724 So.2d 897 (Miss. 1998).
30 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 423 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. 1981).
31 George W. Prescott Publishing Co. v Stoughton Division of the District Court, 429 Mass. 309; 701 N.E.2d 307 (1998).
32 Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Schmidt, 360 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985); Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Lee, 353 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
33 State v. Ozbirn, cc-930148, Dist. Franklin Cty., Ala., dismissed, Feb. 3, 1994).
34 J.C. and C.C. v. WALA-TV, Inc., 675 So.2d 360 (Ala. 1996).
35 In re a Minor, 205 Ill. App. 3d 480, 563 N.E.2d 1069 (1990).
36 In re M.B., 137 Ill. App. 3d 992,484 N.E.2d 1154 (1985).
37 In re Juvenile Appeal, 195 Conn. 303, 488 A.2d 778 (1985).
38 State v. Yard, No. CV-83-897 (Me. Super. Ct., Aug. 26, 1983).
39 Edward A. Sherman Publishing Co. v. Goldberg, 443 A.2d 1252 (R.I. 1982).
40 Alaska Stat. § 47.12.300 (1999); Mont. Code Ann § 41-5-216 (1999); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,105 (1998); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 169-B:38 (1999); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-2-16(B) (1998); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-2-32 (1998); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-2-33 (1998); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7005-1.3 (1998); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-690 (1998); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 26-7A-38 (1999); W. Va. Code § 49-5-17 (1999); Wis. Stat. Ann.§ 48.299 (1997)
41 Uniform Rules for the Juvenile Courts of Georgia, R. 26.1; R. 26.2 (1999).
42 In re B.P., 9 Media L. Rep. 1151 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. 1983).
43 Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 30. (1998).
44 Kentucky v. Carneal, No. 97-CR-00350 (Ky. 2d Cir. Ct., order banning recording devices Aug. 12, 1998).
45 18 U.S.C. § 5031-42.
46 United States v. A.D., 28 F.3d 1350 (3d. Cir. 1994).
47 18 U.S.C. § 5038(d); Oklahoma Publ. Co. v. United States, 515 F. Supp 1255 (Okla. 1981).