Maryland

Delinquency proceedings: Whether a juvenile delinquency proceeding is open to the public in Maryland depends on the nature of the alleged offense. Hearings are open to the public if the child is charged with a felony unless good cause is shown for closing the proceeding. The court also may close a hearing in a felony delinquency proceeding when a child victim is testifying unless good cause for the child’s testimony in open court is shown. Hearings in delinquency proceedings alleging misdemeanor offenses are closed to the public. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-8A-13 (West 2012). Courts must list the name of the alleged offender in all juvenile felony hearings and post hearing times and places. The clerk must make the list publicly available prior to convening court on any day the juvenile court is in session. Md. Juv. Ct. R. 11-104.

Dependency proceedings: In any proceeding in which a child is alleged to be in need of assistance, the court may exclude the general public from the hearing and admit only those people with a direct interest in the proceeding. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-810. The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest appellate court, held that although a juvenile court has the discretion to exclude the media and public from a juvenile proceeding, this discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised within constitutional limitations. In re Maria P., 904 A.2d 432, 442 (Md. 2006) (involving the exclusion of a mother from a hearing during the testimony of her 12-year-old daughter, whom the mother allegedly abused); see also Balt. Sun. Co. v. State, 667 A.2d 166, 171 (Md. 1995). In The Sun case, the court also ruled that although a juvenile court can place reasonable restrictions on the media’s use of information obtained in a confidential juvenile proceeding, it cannot limit their publication of information legitimately collected from other sources nor can it condition access to the juvenile proceeding on the required publication of specific material dictated by the court. In that case, a juvenile dependency proceeding involving the alleged abuse of an infant, the Court of Appeals found that the juvenile court could not restrict the publication of a photograph of the juvenile obtained from the police department. Nor could the lower court, consistent with constitutional free-press guarantees, require the media to publish specific material, including the use of specific terms in referring to the juvenile.

Delinquency and dependency records: Juvenile court records are confidential and cannot be released without a court order for good cause. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 3-827, 3-8A-27; Md. Juv. Ct. R. 11-121. But these statutes do not prohibit public access to juvenile facilities, the state attorney general found. Md. Op. Att’y Gen. 93-038 (1993). Even in civil court, records relating to juveniles may be sealed in certain circumstances. The federal court in Maryland held that preserving the confidential identity of a minor and her family was a compelling government interest and that replacing the juvenile plaintiff’s name with her initials in a civil rights complaint was a sufficiently narrowly tailored redaction to serve this interest. But the court also held that any interested party, in that case a newspaper, may file a motion requesting further relief regarding the contents of the complaint, its attachments and other court pleadings. M.P. v. Schwartz, 853 F. Supp. 164, 168—69 (D. Md. 1994).

Minor testimony: Maryland law allows child victims of child or sexual abuse to testify in criminal proceedings outside the presence of the defendant via closed-circuit television. The statute does not specify whether the media and public may remain in the courtroom when this testimony is broadcast there. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 11-303. But the Court of Appeals held that closing the courtroom during the testimony of a 14-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court emphasized that while the trial judge has the authority to close the courtroom under such circumstances, he or she must provide case-specific findings justifying the closure order. The court also suggested that a judge considering a motion to close the courtroom during the victim’s testimony in a child sexual abuse trial should hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter and may not simply rely on the prosecution’s general claims that protection of the child warrants closure. Carter v. State, 738 A.2d 871, 876—78 (Md. 1999). Court rules governing the recording, broadcasting and photographing of court proceedings allow the court on request by any of the participants or on its own to prohibit such media coverage for good cause. There is a presumption that good cause exists in cases involving minors. Md. R. 16-109.