Judicial Speech

Published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
[Front page]

Secret Justice: A continuing series

The American judicial system has, historically, been open to the public, and the U.S. Supreme Court has continually affirmed the presumption of openness. However, as technology expands and as the perceived threat of violence grows, individual courts attempt to keep control over proceedings by limiting the flow of information. Courts are reluctant to allow media access to certain cases or to certain proceedings, like jury selection.

Courts routinely impose gag orders to limit public discussion about pending cases, presuming that there is no better way to ensure a fair trial. Many judges fear that having cameras in courtrooms will somehow interfere with the decorum and solemnity of judicial proceedings. Such steps, purportedly taken to ensure fairness, may actually harm the integrity of a trial because court secrecy and limits on information are contrary to the fundamental constitutional guarantee of a public trial.

The public should be the beneficiary of the judicial system. Criminal proceedings are instituted in the name of “the people” for the benefit of the public. Civil proceedings are available for members of the public to obtain justice, either individually or on behalf of a “class” of persons similarly situated. The public, therefore, should be informed — well— about trials of public interest. The media, as the public’s representative, need to be aware of threats to openness in court proceedings, and must be prepared to fight to insure continued access to trials.

In this series, the Reporters Committee takes a look at key aspects of court secrecy and how they affect the newsgathering process. We examine trends toward court secrecy, and what can be done to challenge it.

The first article in this “Secret Justice” series, published in Fall 2000, concerned the growing trend of anonymous juries. The second installment, published in Spring 2001, covered gag orders on participants in trials. The third, published in Fall 2001, covered access to alternative dispute resolution procedures. The fourth, published in Winter 2002, covered access to terrorism proceedings. The fifth, published in Summer 2003, concerned sealed court dockets.

This report was researched and written by James McLaughlin, who is the 2003-2004 McCormick-Tribune Legal Fellow at the Reporters Committee.

[Front page]