01A

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

Overview

New York

See, e.g., Courtroom Television Network LLC v. State, 5 N.Y.3d 222, 231, 833 N.E.2d 1197 (2005):

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

Overview

MASTER

The U.S. Supreme Court consistently has recognized that the public and press have a presumptive First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings in criminal cases, finding that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality opinion).

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

Overview

D.C. Cir.

The D.C. Circuit has not itself expanded the holding in Richmond Newspapers and its progeny to provide for a First Amendment presumption of access beyond criminal proceedings. In re Application of New York Times Co. for Access to Certain Sealed Court Records, 585 F.Supp.2d 83, 87 n. 4 (D.D.C. 2008)(applying First Amendment right of access to certain sealed search warrant materials relating to the government’s investigation into the anthrax mailings of 2001).

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

Overview

Oklahoma

Even before Richmond Newspapers, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had recognized the presumptive openness of judicial proceedings and the functional values served by openness in Lyles v. State, 1958 OK CR 79, 330 P.2d 734 (rejecting claim of appellant that television coverage of trial had denied him a fair trial), and Neal v. State, 86 OK CR 283, 192 P.2d 294 (exclusion of public from trial was prejudicial error). Richmond Newspapers and the Press Enterprise cases have been cited and applied by the Oklahoma courts in a variety of contexts.

A. The First Amendment presumption of access

Overview

1st Cir.

The First Circuit follows the Supreme Court’s decision Richmond Newspapers, Inc. and presumes a qualified First Amendment right of access to certain judicial proceedings and documents. See e.g., In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 182 (1st Cir. 2003).