State-by-state guide:

New York

N.Y. C.L.S. Family Ct. Act § 720.15 (1998): The public does not have access to the accusatory instrument used against a youth offender. Furthermore, the arraignment based upon the accusatory instrument shall be held in private. However, this statute does not apply when the youth offender is charged with a felony or when the youth has previously been adjudicated to be a youth offender or convicted of a crime.

N.Y. C.L.S. Family Ct. Act § 341.1 (1998): With regard to juvenile delinquency proceedings, the general public may be excluded from any proceeding and only such persons and the representatives of authorized agencies that have a direct interest in the case may be admitted.

N.Y. C.L.S. Family Ct. Act § 166 (1998): The records of any proceeding in the family court shall not be open to indiscriminate public inspection. However, the court in its discretion in any case may permit the inspection of any papers or records.

N.Y. C.L.S. Family Ct. Act § 741(b) (1998): The general public may be excluded from hearings regarding whether a juvenile is in need of supervision and only persons with a direct interest in the case may be admitted.

N.Y. C.L.S. Unif. Rules, Family Ct. § 205.4 (1998): In general, the Family Court is open to the public. Members of the public, including the news media, shall have access to all courtrooms, lobbies, public waiting areas and other common areas of the Family Court otherwise open to individuals having business before the court. The general public may be excluded from a courtroom only if the judge presiding in the courtroom determines, on a case-by-case basis, that such exclusion is warranted in that case. In exercising this discretion, the judge may consider whether: (1) the person is causing or is likely to cause a disruption in the proceedings; (2) the presence of a person is objected to by one of the parties, including the law guardian, for a compelling reason; (3) the orderly and sound administration of justice, including the nature of the proceeding, the privacy interests of individuals before the court, and the need for protection of the litigants, in particular, children, from harm requires that some or all observers be excluded from the courtroom; and, (4) less restrictive alternatives to exclusion are unavailable or inappropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. The judge must make any closure findings on the record. In order to preserve the decorum of the proceedings, the judge shall instruct representatives of the news media regarding the permissible use of the courtroom and other facilities of the court, the assignment of seats to representatives of the news media on an equitable basis, and any other matters that may affect the conduct of the proceedings and the well-being and safety of the litigants therein.

Sentencing proceeding: Sentencing proceedings in felony cases in which defendants have been granted youthful offender status are presumptively open to the press and public. Capital Newspapers v. Moynihan, 71 N.Y.S.2d 263, 519 N.E.2d 825 (1988).

Closure order: There is a presumption of openness with regard to all criminal proceedings, including pretrial hearings, that must be overcome before a judge may issue a closure order. Herald Co. v . Tormey, 537 N.Y.S.2d 978, 142 Misc. 2d 675 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).

Access to court records: Newspaper has a right of access to felony complaint filed against a defendant who was eligible for youthful offender status but was not yet ruled to be a youthful offender. Orange Cty. Publishing v. Sawyer, 14 Media L. Rep., 1766 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987).

Privacy: Juvenile defendant’s mere claim of right of privacy does not overcome right of press and public to attend delinquency proceedings. In re Chase, 448 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 112 Misc. 2d 436 (1982).

Access denied: News media were denied access to fact-finding hearing to determine whether nine-year-old committed acts which would have been "criminal" had he committed them as an adult. Family court denied access based on extreme youth of juveniles, objections to access by respondent’s attorney and court’s inability, if access was granted, to shield juvenile or his family from publicity. In re Robert M., 7 Media L. Rep. 1173 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1981).

Access denied: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded press and public from pretrial suppression hearing in murder prosecution of 13-year old and instead granted the media access to redacted transcript of the hearing. The court reasoned that because the defendant’s interests would no longer be in jeopardy, access to the transcript after the hearing was permissible. In re Merola, 47 N.Y.2d 985, 419 N.Y.S.2d 965, 393 N.E.2d 1038 (1979), cert. den. sub nom. Merola v. Bell, 448 U.S. 910 (1980).

Access granted: Trial court correctly granted the media access to juvenile proceedings for 15-year-old. The defendant failed to show absolute necessity for exclusion of press and public, and closure of proceedings would violate media’s First Amendment news gathering right and the public’s First Amendment right to receive information. State v. Green, 4 Media L. Rep. 1561 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1978).

Access granted: Judges may admit the news media and parties to the proceedings, and may disclose copies of court records. Dorsey v. National Enquirer, Inc., 973 F.2d 1431, 20 Media L. Rep. 1745 (1992).

Equal protection: On a motion to close custody proceedings to press and public, there was no merit to plaintiff’s contention that child’s right to equal protection was violated because his custody was being decided in Supreme Court rather than Family Court since there was no significant distinction between protection from improper media coverage afforded subject of custody dispute in Family Court and in Supreme Court. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 158 A.D.2d 296, 550 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1990).

Closure authorized: A child protective proceedings can be closed to press and to public because: (1) all parties to proceeding, law guardian, county attorney and district attorney were opposed to presence of press and public in courtroom; (2) although the kidnapping and sexual abuse of the child had received considerable publicity, precise details of the child’s family life which preceded that event had not yet been divulged; and (3) uncontroverted affidavit of psychologist indicated that opening of courtroom to press and public would re-victimize child and have negative effect on her well-being. In Re Katherine B., 189 A.D.2d 443, 596 N.Y.S.2d 847 (1993).

Closure authorized: A child protective proceeding involving 5 surviving siblings of 6-year-old girl, whose brutal murder while in her parents’ custody received intensive media coverage, can be closed to public and press because potential trauma to children resulting from public dissemination of certain personal aspects of their lives outweighed interests of press in having free access to judicial proceedings. In re Ruben R., 219 A.D.2d 117, 641 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1996).

Closure authorized: In a well-publicized child custody proceeding involving parties’ six minor children, two of whom had achieved professional success as motion picture actors, the proceeding would be closed to press and general public to protect children from further emotional and educational harm judge’s best efforts to protect children, by entertaining in camera offers of proof and closing. P.B. v C.C., 223 A.D.2d 294, 647 N.Y.S.2d 732 (1996).

Access granted: Although department of social services and law guardian objected to presence of reporter at neglect proceeding, the court still retained discretion to permit reporter to be present, subject to conditions including (1) no audiovisual coverage, portrait sketching or still photographs, (2) confidential records could be reviewed subject to limitations and no names in files could be printed, (3) no publication of names of persons who reported possible abuse or neglect, (4) no publication of names or identifying information of victim, respondent, foster parents, teachers, etc., and (5) no publication of anything referring to transcript without confirmation that transcript supplied to reporter by respondent was exact duplicate of official transcript. In re Ulster County Dep’t of Social Servs. ex rel. Jane, 621 N.Y.S.2d 428, 163 Misc. 2d 373 (1993).

Access granted: The appellate court held that a juvenile delinquency proceeding involving 12-year-old boy accused of setting fire that eventually caused death of his grandmother, widow of famous civil rights leader and esteemed spokesperson for human rights, would be open to press. In re Shabazz, 662 N.Y.S.2d 207, 173 Misc.2d 656 (1997).

Access granted: The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding that no evidence exists that the presence of the press would potentially have detrimental effects on the juvenile’s well-being. In the Matter of Malcolm S., 663 N.Y.S.2d 979, 241 A.D.2d 469 (1997)