11.4 Access to courtrooms and trials

Access to courtrooms and trials is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. This ensures transparency in the judicial system, allowing the public and press to attend criminal proceedings. However, this right isn't absolute and can be limited to protect trial fairness and parties' rights.

Courts must balance access rights against competing interests like defendant fairness and sensitive information protection. Limitations may include closing courtrooms, shielding witnesses, or preserving confidentiality. Cameras in courtrooms remain contentious, with varying rules across jurisdictions and special considerations for high-profile cases.

Courtroom access rights

• The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the public and press the right to attend criminal trials, ensuring transparency and accountability in the judicial system
• This right of access is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances to protect the fairness of the trial and the rights of the parties involved

First Amendment protections

Top images from around the web for First Amendment protections

• 

  United States Supreme Court Courtroom | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jury Box, Courtroom, Jackson County Courthouse, Edna, Texa… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  United States Supreme Court Courtroom | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for First Amendment protections

• 

  United States Supreme Court Courtroom | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Jury Box, Courtroom, Jackson County Courthouse, Edna, Texa… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  United States Supreme Court Courtroom | Flickr - Photo Sharing! View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment implicitly grants the public and press a qualified right of access to criminal trials (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia)
• This right is based on the historical openness of criminal trials and the vital role public access plays in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole
• The right of access is not limited to the trial itself but extends to other aspects of the criminal process, such as jury selection (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court) and preliminary hearings (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II))

State vs federal courts

• The right of access to criminal trials applies to both state and federal courts
• However, the specific rules and procedures governing access may vary between jurisdictions
• State courts are bound by the First Amendment but may have additional state constitutional provisions or statutes that affect access rights
• Federal courts are subject to the First Amendment and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provide guidelines for access to proceedings and documents

Courtroom access limitations

• While the public and press have a qualified right of access to criminal trials, this right is not absolute and may be limited in certain circumstances
• Courts must balance the right of access against other competing interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial and the need to protect sensitive information

Protecting trial fairness

• In some cases, courts may limit access to the courtroom to ensure the fairness of the trial and prevent prejudice to the defendant
• This may involve closing the courtroom during certain portions of the proceedings, such as when discussing sensitive evidence or testimony
• Courts may also issue gag orders restricting the parties and attorneys from making public statements that could influence potential jurors or witnesses

Shielding certain witnesses

• Courts may protect vulnerable witnesses, such as children or victims of sexual assault, by limiting public access during their testimony
• This can involve closing the courtroom, using video testimony, or allowing witnesses to testify behind a screen or through other means that shield their identity
• These measures are designed to minimize trauma and encourage witnesses to testify freely without fear of public exposure

Preserving confidentiality

• In some cases, courts may need to restrict access to protect confidential or sensitive information
• This can include trade secrets, classified government information, or medical records
• Courts may seal certain documents or hold portions of the proceedings in camera (in private) to prevent the disclosure of confidential information

Cameras in the courtroom

• The presence of cameras in the courtroom is a contentious issue, with different jurisdictions having varying rules and policies
• Proponents argue that cameras promote transparency and public understanding of the judicial system, while opponents raise concerns about the potential impact on trial fairness and witness behavior

State rules on cameras

• Each state has its own rules governing the use of cameras in courtrooms
• Some states allow cameras in both trial and appellate courts, while others have more restrictive policies
• Many states require the consent of the parties and the approval of the judge before allowing cameras in the courtroom
• States may also have specific guidelines for camera placement, use, and media pooling arrangements

Federal court prohibitions

• In contrast to many state courts, federal courts have historically been more resistant to allowing cameras in the courtroom
• Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits the broadcasting of judicial proceedings in criminal cases
• The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal court system, has consistently opposed the presence of cameras in federal trial courts
• However, some federal appellate courts have allowed cameras in certain circumstances, such as for high-profile cases or for educational purposes

High-profile trial exceptions

• In some high-profile trials, courts may make exceptions to their usual camera policies due to intense public interest
• For example, in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the court allowed cameras in the courtroom, which led to extensive media coverage and public scrutiny
• However, the decision to allow cameras in high-profile trials is still at the discretion of the court and is not guaranteed
• Courts must weigh the public interest against the potential impact on the trial's fairness and the parties' rights

Journalist conduct in court

• Journalists covering court proceedings have a responsibility to maintain proper decorum and respect for the court's authority
• They must balance their role as observers and reporters with the need to minimize disruption to the proceedings

Courtroom decorum

• Journalists should dress appropriately and behave professionally while in the courtroom
• They should avoid drawing attention to themselves or disrupting the proceedings with noise or movement
• Journalists should also follow the court's rules regarding the use of electronic devices, such as phones and laptops, which may be restricted or prohibited in some cases

Respecting court authority

• Journalists must respect the authority of the judge and court staff and follow their instructions
• This includes adhering to any restrictions on media access, seating arrangements, or the use of cameras or recording devices
• Journalists should also refrain from approaching parties, attorneys, or witnesses in the courtroom without permission

Protecting confidential sources

• Journalists have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the identity of confidential sources
• In some cases, journalists may be called to testify about their sources or information gathered during their reporting
• Journalists should be familiar with their jurisdiction's shield laws, which may provide some protection against compelled disclosure of confidential sources
• However, the extent of this protection varies, and journalists may still face legal consequences for refusing to reveal sources when ordered by a court

Reporting on court proceedings

• Journalists have a crucial role in informing the public about court proceedings and ensuring transparency in the judicial system
• However, they must exercise caution and responsibility in their reporting to avoid unduly influencing the outcome of the trial or compromising the rights of the parties involved

Ensuring accuracy

• Journalists must strive for accuracy in their reporting of court proceedings
• They should carefully listen to testimony, review court documents, and seek clarification when necessary to ensure they are conveying information correctly
• Journalists should also be mindful of legal terminology and concepts and explain them clearly for their audience

Avoiding undue influence

• Journalists should be careful not to report in a way that could unduly influence the trial's outcome or the opinions of potential jurors
• This may involve avoiding sensationalism, speculation, or excessive commentary on the evidence or testimony presented
• Journalists should also be cautious about reporting on inadmissible evidence or statements made outside the presence of the jury to avoid prejudicing the proceedings

Handling mid-trial reporting

• Reporting on ongoing trials can be challenging, as journalists must balance the public's right to know with the need to avoid influencing the outcome
• Journalists should be mindful of any restrictions on their reporting, such as gag orders or limitations on the use of certain information
• They should also be prepared to update their reporting as the trial progresses and new information comes to light
• Journalists may need to provide context and analysis to help their audience understand the significance of developments in the trial

Access to court records

• Court records, including documents filed in a case and evidence presented at trial, are generally considered public records and are subject to disclosure under freedom of information laws
• However, access to court records may be limited in certain circumstances to protect privacy, confidentiality, or other compelling interests

Public record laws

• Most jurisdictions have public record laws that grant the public the right to access court records
• These laws are based on the principle of open government and the belief that the public has a right to know about the workings of the judicial system
• Public record laws may have specific exemptions for certain types of records, such as those containing personal or confidential information

Sealed vs unsealed documents

• In some cases, courts may seal certain documents or records, meaning they are not available to the public
• Sealing may be done to protect trade secrets, personal privacy, or other sensitive information
• Unsealed documents are available to the public and can typically be accessed through the court clerk's office or online court record systems
• Journalists may need to file a motion or request to access sealed documents, which the court will then consider based on the competing interests involved

Accessing evidence exhibits

• Evidence exhibits presented at trial, such as photographs, videos, or physical objects, are also generally considered public records
• However, access to these exhibits may be more limited than access to written documents
• Journalists may need to request access to exhibits through the court clerk's office or the attorneys involved in the case
• In some cases, exhibits may be released to the media in a controlled manner, such as through a media pool or by providing copies rather than originals

Challenges to access

• Despite the general presumption of openness in court proceedings and records, journalists may face challenges in gaining access in certain circumstances
• These challenges can come in the form of gag orders, closed courtrooms, or other restrictions on access

Gag orders

• Gag orders are court orders that prohibit the parties, attorneys, or witnesses from making public statements about the case
• Judges may issue gag orders to prevent prejudicial publicity that could impact the fairness of the trial
• Gag orders can be controversial, as they raise First Amendment concerns and may limit the public's right to know about the case
• Journalists may challenge gag orders in court, arguing that they are unconstitutional prior restraints on speech

Closed courtrooms

• In some cases, judges may close the courtroom to the public and press for portions of the proceedings
• This may be done to protect the privacy of certain witnesses, such as children or victims of sexual assault, or to discuss sensitive or confidential information
• Journalists may object to closed courtrooms and argue for access based on the First Amendment right to attend criminal trials
• Courts must make specific findings justifying the closure and consider alternatives that would protect the interests at stake while still allowing public access

Appeals for media access

• When faced with restrictions on access, journalists may file appeals or seek legal remedies to gain access to the proceedings or records
• This may involve filing a motion to intervene in the case, seeking a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling access), or appealing the decision to a higher court
• Media organizations may also work together to pool resources and coordinate legal efforts to challenge access restrictions
• Appellate courts will review the lower court's decision and balance the competing interests involved, ultimately deciding whether the restriction on access was justified under the circumstances