Rhode Island

Delinquency and dependency proceedings: Juvenile court proceedings are closed to the public in Rhode Island. R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-30 (2011). The state Supreme Court held that excluding the media from juvenile court proceedings pursuant to the statutory provision allowing only those with a direct interest to attend was permissible. But barring from a proceeding members of the media who had published the name of a juvenile amounted to a penalty for the publication of lawfully obtained information. In addition, a court order that conditioned access to other juvenile court proceedings on an advance agreement to not publish the names of the juveniles involved was impermissibly overbroad and an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication. Edward A. Sherman Publ’g Co. v. Goldberg, 443 A.2d 1252, 1257—58 (R.I. 1982).

Delinquency and dependency records: Juvenile court and police records are not available for public inspection except in delinquency proceedings where the juvenile is tried as an adult or certified for trial and convicted in the juvenile court. R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-64. This general rule of confidentiality does not apply, however, to records of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families pertaining to children and their families in need of service or for whom an application for services has been made when the director of the department determines that there is a risk of physical self-injury by the person or injury to others and disclosure of the records is necessary to reduce that risk. The director also may disclose as he or she deems necessary the findings or other information about a case of child abuse or neglect that resulted in a child fatality or near fatality. Id. § 42-72-8.

Restrictions on coverage: Rhode Island law allows victims 17 years old or younger to testify in sexual assault trials outside the presence of the defendant via video-recorded testimony or closed-circuit television. The statute does not specify whether the media and public may remain in the courtroom when this testimony is broadcast there. Id. § 11-37-13.2. In addition, the state Supreme Court held that the protection of minor victims of sexual crimes from further trauma and embarrassment was a compelling state interest that justified redaction of court records in such criminal cases. But the trial court’s blanket sealing of all records in child sexual assault cases impermissibly restricted the public’s right of access to information about criminal prosecutions. The court directed the Superior Court to establish a “dual filing system” for a “confidential court file” and a “public file,” the latter of which contains redacted documents in which the victim’s name is either removed entirely or substituted by a fictitious name. Providence Journal Co. v. Rodgers, 711 A.2d 1131, 1138—39 (R.I. 1998).