MEDIA AT JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS.   Term Paper ID:24400 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines media access, First Amendment vs. juveniles' right to confidentiality, shield laws, federal & state court decisions.... More...

11 Pages / 2475 Words 15 sources, 60 Citations, TURABIAN Format $44.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines media access, First Amendment vs. juveniles' right to confidentiality, shield laws, federal & state court decisions. Paper Introduction: The Media's Right to Access Juvenile Proceedings Introduction The media do not have an unqualified right to access juvenile proceedings. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia established the media's right of access to criminal trials, the purpose of an open trial is to protect the defendant's interests from possible prosecutorial or judicial abuse. This right of access does not apply to juvenile proceedings because anonymity and confidentiality often serve the juvenile's interests best. Thus, juvenile proceedings have traditionally been closed, and all 50 states now have some sort of shield law to promote confidentiality of juvenile proceedings. Nonetheless, the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall m Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. 1428, 1442, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, 545 (1967).In re J.D.C., 594 A.2d 7 , 76 (D.C.App.1991).In re J.S., 438 A.2d 1125 (Vt.1981).KGTV Channel 1 v. . 97 (1979). [55] Baltimore Sun, 172 citing Austin Daily Herald v. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (198 ).Smith v. 3 8 (1974) [1 ] Goldberg, 1258. [25] Ibid. appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court from a lower court orderallowing the public and the press to attend the proceedings to adjudge himas a delinquent.[27] The order also held that the Vermont juvenile shieldlaw (§ 651(c)) that mandated closure of juvenile proceedings to the publicand the news media violated the First Amendment. [16] Ibid., 1361. [22] 443 U.S. However, most state courts now perform a case-by-case analysis to determine in which cases the media should be allowed topublish information about the juvenile. [3 ] Ibid. of the press."[4] The Supreme Courthas interpreted this clause to afford special protection against ordersthat prohibit publication or broadcast of particular information orcommentary through a "prior restraint" on speech.[5] Because priorrestraints are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement onFirst Amendment rights, any prior restraint bears a heavy presumption ofunconstitutionality.[6] Juvenile shield laws are, in effect, priorrestraints on speech because they prohibit the media from publishinginformation about juvenile proceedings. [3] Associated Press v. San Diego County, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 (Cal.App.4 Dist.1994).Okl. [39] Bradshaw, 579. [21] Ibid. 97, 99S.Ct. Virginia[1] established the media's right of access to criminaltrials, the purpose of an open trial is to protect the defendant'sinterests from possible prosecutorial or judicial abuse. [2 ] Baltimore Sun, 171. [46] Capital Newspaper Division v. Goldberg, 443 A.2d 1252, 1258(R.I.1982). In the case before thecourt, the offense was murder, and, thus, members of the public includingthe press were entitled by statute to attend. 1 45, 51 L.Ed.2d 355 (1977).Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Co. [56] Ibid., 176. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Richmond Newspapers,Inc. The courtstated that the Supreme Court never intimated that the media have a FirstAmendment right of access to government information or to sources ofinformation within the government's control. The Media's Right to Access Juvenile Proceedings Introduction The media do not have an unqualified right to access juvenileproceedings. Rather, it argued Congressintended to leave the task of weighing the interests of the juvenile andthe public to the informed discretion of the district judge in eachcase.[33] Therefore, the Act did not mandate closed hearings and sealedrecords in all situations, and any denial or limitation of access had to besupported by factual findings related to the circumstances of theparticular case.[34] The court's decision in A.D. v. v. [24] Ibid. Moynihan, 519 N.E.2d 825, 827(Ct.App.1988). Pub. [41] Ibid. [5 ] Ibid., 83 . 1, 25, 87 S.Ct. A.D., 28 F.2d 1353 (3rd Cir.1994).----------------------- [1] 448 U.S. [6] Ibid. San Diego County, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 181, 184(Cal.App.4 Dist.1994). [35] In the Matter of M.C., 527 N.W.2d 29 , 293 (S.D.1995). Maryland, 667 A.2d 166 (Ct.App.1995).Capital Newspaper Division v. Moynihan, 519 N.E.2d 825 (Ct.App.1988).Davis v. Bradshaw, 41 N.W.2d 577, 578 (S.D.1987). [33] Ibid. [14] Baltimore Sun, 171. [51] KGTV Channel 1 v. Once theproceeding has begun, the press has the right to attend. [32] A.D., 1361. [49] Ibid. 11 5, 1112, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 355 (1974).Edward A. In South Dakota, the media's right of access tojuvenile proceedings stems from a statute which provides the following: Upon the trial or hearing of cases arising under this chapter, the court shall admit the general public to the hearing room except when the child, his parents or their attorney request that the hearing be private, and in that event the court may admit only such persons as may have a direct interest in the case, witnesses, officers of the court and news media representatives.[39]The media argued that the language afforded them an unqualified right ofaccess to all juvenile proceedings. v. Rather, the trial judgeshould conduct a hearing at which representatives of the media and of thestate or other local prosecuting authority offer evidence about thejuvenile's identity and the manner in which that information wasobtained.[43] If the trial court determines that the media learned thename of the juvenile from a judicial source, the court will order the medianot to publicize the juvenile's name, will prohibit the media fromattending proceedings involving that juvenile, or will exclude the mediafrom other juvenile proceedings.[44] If, however, the trial courtdetermines the media learned the juvenile's name from non-judicial sources,the trial court must allows the media to report, publish, or make publicthe juvenile's name and must allow the media to attend the juvenileproceeding.[45] The procedure required under New York statutes demonstrates thecourts' dedication to the mandate that the press cannot be restrained frompublication without a hearing. [12] Ibid. State Court Decisions Litigation concerning media access at the state level has surroundedthe media's right to publish information pertaining to juvenile proceedingsrather than the media's right to attend the proceedings. [18] Ibid. [8] 387 U.S. Once initiated,the court must establish that the media will endanger the juvenile's bestinterests. In all such cases, however, thesubject of review is the means by which the media obtained the informationthey seek to publish. The court disagreed, stating that thestatute provided only a permissive standard.[4 ] In this case, the trial judge held a hearing on the requestedclosure.[41] The court stated that, once a request for closure is made,the trial court must assure that the interests of all parties areprotected, including the juvenile, the media, the State, and the court, byaffording all parties notice and a hearing before the trial court makes adetermination on closure. [34] Ibid., 1362. The court that stated the Legislature recognized andexpressed solicitude for the special situation of youthful offenders butthat it did so in a statute the courts were required to interpret andapply.[49] Thus, while the purposes of the closure and confidentialityprovisions were clear, those provisions did not require a court to shieldmisdemeanants from public proceedings and public exposure in the press.[5 ] The decision about whether such information would be shielded lay withinthe discretion of the court. [43] Goldberg, 1259. [17] Baltimore Sun, 171. Daily Mail Publishing Co.,[22] the Court struckdown a statute that made publication of a juvenile's name in connectionwith juvenile proceedings a criminal offense unless court approval wasobtained before publication. In California, whena petition alleges the minor has committed murder or other serious, violentoffenses, the statute provides that the public can be admitted on the samebasis as it may be admitted to trials in a court of criminaljurisdiction.[51] Thus, the law drops the shield of juvenile status incases where the crime is of sufficient severity. Court In & For Oklahoma Cty., 43 U.S. Although the two above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions provide the general principles with whichall state laws must comply, the Supreme Court has not stated whatconditions can be placed upon the media when granting access to anotherwise closed juvenile proceeding.[25] In other words, the SupremeCourt has not addressed to what extent state statutes can place priorrestraints on the media's access to information about juvenile proceedings. [26] 438 A.2d 1125 (Vt.1981) [27] Goldberg, 1258. As in the previous case, the Court did notbase its decision on whether the state law constituted a priorrestraint.[23] Rather, it stated that, if a newspaper lawfully obtainedthe information, the State could not constitutionally punish publication ofthe information without a need to further a state interest of the highestorder.[24] Decisions such as those described above now place the burden on thestate court to ensure the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings. reveals juvenile shield laws will not beinterpreted to bar completely media access to juvenile proceedings. Despitestatutes that appear to do so, blanket prohibitions of the media areunconstitutional as a prior restraint on speech. [36] 594 A.2d 7 , 76 (D.C.App.1991), [37] M.C., 293 quoting J.D.C., 594 A.2d at 76. [42] Ibid. [6 ] Ibid., 171. v. For example, thisissue was addressed by the Vermont Supreme Court in In re J.S.[26] J.S.was a 15-year-old charged as a juvenile delinquent for his role in theassault of two 12-year-old girls and the resulting death of one of thegirls. The Court stated the media had no absoluteconstitutional right of access to any phase of a criminal trial.[28] Itnoted many reasons why the State's compelling interests in the confidentialjuvenile proceedings could override both the interests of the public andthe news media in access to those proceedings and the news media's interestin publicly disseminating what its reporters learn while attending.[29]For example, publication of the youth's name could impair therehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and handicap hisprospects for adjusting to society, for acceptance by the public, or foremployment opportunities.[3 ] Finally, public proceedings could soembarrass the youth's family members that they withhold their support inrehabilitative efforts.[31] However, judicial interpretation of section 5 38(e) of the federalJuvenile Delinquency Act demonstrates the constitutional limitations underwhich these laws labor. 555 (198 ) [2] Edward A. Sherman Publishing Co. [57] Ibid., 173 citing Goldberg, 443 A.2d at 1257-59. Court In & For Oklahoma Cty.,[19] theCourt allowed publication of the name or picture of a minor child involvedin a juvenile proceeding even though juvenile hearings were presumptivelyclosed under Oklahoma law.[2 ] The Court found that members of the presswere present at the hearing with the full knowledge of the judge, theprosecutor, and the defense counsel and that there was no evidence themedia acquired the information unlawfully or without the State'sapproval.[21] Similarly, in Smith v. 1, 25 (1967) [9] 415 U.S. Goldberg, 443 A.2d 1252 (R.I.1982).In the Matter of M.C., 527 N.W.2d 29 (S.D.1995).In re Gault, 387 U.S. 3 8 (1977). New York statute article 72 ("YouthfulOffender Procedure") recognizes the unique status of youths tried incriminal courts.[46] Youthful offender status under the statute isdetermined only after the defendant has been tried and convictedcriminally. Thecourt stated the principles that require adult criminal trials be open tothe public do not control where the interests of a minor child are atissue.[37] Consequently, the trial court denied access to the juvenilehearings because the best interest of the child required keeping theproceedings closed.[38] Thus, all state courts continue to uphold state laws limiting accessto juvenile proceedings. 3 8, 319, 94 S.Ct. Issues for the trial court to consider are thenature and extent of press coverage, whether the coverage prior to theclosure hearing has been excessive or sensational, whether the minor's namehas been released to the public, whether alternative measures to closureare available, and whether the proceedings closed to the public and presswill be temporary.[42] The holding in Goldberg is also illustrative. Virginia, 448 U.S. 3 8, 97 S.Ct. The Vermont Supreme Court held that confidentiality of juvenileproceedings was not in conflict with the First Amendment and upheldVermont's juvenile shield law. The Rhode Island shieldlaw, G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 14-1-3 , excludes from juvenileproceedings all but those with a direct interest in the case. . [59] Baltimore Sun, 174. [5] Ibid. [4 ] Ibid. [4] Baltimore Sun Co. v. Mork, 5 7 N.W.2d 854 (Minn.App.1993).Baltimore Sun Co. In Okl. J.S. §6336(d), and Delaware's provides "[a]ll proceedings before the court andall records of such proceedings may be private," 1 Del.Code § 972(a).[16]In addition, Maryland Code § 3-812(e) of the Courts Article provides that,in a juvenile proceeding, the court "may exclude the general public from ahearing, and admit only those persons having a direct interest in theproceeding and their representatives."[17] The statute also provides thatcourt records pertaining to juveniles are confidential and can be divulgedonly by court order or for limited educational purposes.[18] Nonetheless, the decisions of the Supreme Court in two cases involvingjuvenile proceedings also reveal the unclear status of the law in thisarea. [54] Ibid., 188. [31] Ibid., 1129. [45] Ibid. Dist. Bradshaw, 41 N.W.2d 577 (S.D.1987).Austin Daily Herald v. Pub. [47] Ibid. [11] United States v. California law allows the press to publish any true informationdisclosed at a public hearing or held in the records.[52] The lawmaintains that the media's First Amendment rights are not outweighed by theState's interest in protecting and rehabilitating juveniles.[53] However,despite the fact that hearings in cases alleging murder or other seriousoffenses are public, the Legislature still intended that the court wouldensure some degree of confidentiality by limiting the use of last names.Thus, California courts interpret their juvenile shield law to give thecourt discretion, even after it determines a minor committed one of theserious offenses, to keep the juvenile's name confidential.[54] Conclusion Generally, the courts have upheld orders allowing the media to attendjuvenile proceedings as "persons with a direct interest in the proceedings"even if those orders place conditions upon the media's use of confidentialinformation obtained at the proceedings.[55] An order that restrains orrequires publication of specific material is justified only if the interestin protecting the juvenile's anonymity outweighs the interests of the pressand public in the proceedings and the press's right of editorialcontrol.[56] On the other hand, judicial orders have been found unconstitutionalwhen they reach beyond confidential information revealed in the juvenileproceeding and restrain the media from publishing information obtainedthrough otherwise lawful investigation.[57] The Supreme Court has held themedia has a constitutional right to publish information lawfully obtainedinside and outside the courtroom.[58] Thus, the state court can preventthe media from lawfully obtaining information inside the courtroom throughits juvenile shield laws. . [23] Baltimore Sun, 172. The statute provides special measures for persons found to beyouthful offenders because of the legislative desire not to stigmatizeyouths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered byhasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been theserious deeds of hardened criminals.[47] Specifically, CPL 72 .15 states that, when an accusatory instrumentagainst a youth who is apparently eligible for youthful offender status isfiled with the court, the court, with the defendant's consent, must orderit to be filed as a sealed instrument, though only with respect to thepublic.[48] The media argued that the decision about whether to seal theinstrument remained within the court's discretion rather than a mandatefrom the legislature. A court can exclude the pressfrom juvenile proceedings; however, the court must exercise its discretionwithin applicable constitutional limitations.[6 ] This means courts cannotbar the media from juvenile proceedings unless the court demonstrates themedia's presence will jeopardize the juvenile's best interests. . Alaska, 415 U.S. [15] A.D., 136 . Co. Only upon requestfor closure may the process to bar the press be initiated. [52] Ibid., 186. [44] Ibid. BibliographyAssociated Press v. Section 5 38(e) states, "Unless a juvenile who istaken into custody is prosecuted as an adult neither the name nor pictureof any juvenile shall be made public in connection with a juveniledelinquency proceeding." The court stated section 5 38(e) provided noevidence of a congressional mandate to close all juvenile delinquencyhearings and seal all records.[32] The court stated that, while it recognized the need to avoidembarrassing and humiliating juveniles, to obtain evidence about delicatematters, and not to affect the rehabilitation of juveniles adversely, itwas not convinced Congress found across-the-board closure of juvenileproceedings necessary to achieve these goals. This right ofaccess does not apply to juvenile proceedings because anonymity andconfidentiality often serve the juvenile's interests best.[2] Thus,juvenile proceedings have traditionally been closed, and all 5 states nowhave some sort of shield law to promote confidentiality of juvenileproceedings.[3] Nonetheless, the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make nolaw . Alaska[9]: "We do not and need not challenge theState's interest as a matter of its own policy in the administration ofcriminal justice to seek to preserve the anonymity of a juvenileoffender."[1 ] However, the Supreme Court stated the following in Gault in1967: "Disclosure of court records is discretionary with the judge in mostjurisdictions."[11] Thus, juvenile shield laws do not involve blanket prohibitions ofmedia access.[12] However, because of the special sensitivity ofinformation regarding juveniles and the impact public dissemination of suchinformation may have on the youths involved, states have devised a numberof different approaches to accommodate these concerns.[13] Most statecourts now close juvenile proceedings to the public in cases where closurewould be impermissible in other court proceedings.[14] Generally, state statutes that restrict access to juvenile proceedingsdo so directly and clearly.[15] Pennsylvania's delinquency law, forexample, provides "the general public shall be excluded," 42 P.S. Thereare obviously competing interests between the public's right to know andthe juvenile's right to remain anonymous.[35] Such competing interestswere discussed in In re J.D.C.,[36] where the court held the competinginterest of the press to attend a specific juvenile proceeding stands onless firm footing than the state's interest in protecting juveniles. A.D., 28 F.2d 1353, 1357 (3rd Cir.1994). Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. v. [19] 43 U.S. However, a court cannot prevent the media frompublishing material lawfully obtained from sources outside of the judicialproceeding as a condition of granting access to a juvenile proceeding.[59] Therefore, the media does not have an unqualified constitutionalright of access to juvenile proceedings. However, it also demonstrates the State'scommitment to protecting the interests of juveniles to ensure as much aspossible their rehabilitation. Mork, 5 7 N.W.2d854 (Minn.App.1993). [53] Ibid. Maryland, 667 A.2d 166, 171 (Ct.App.1995). [13] Ibid. Sherman Publishing Co. [7] Ibid. [29] J.S., 1129. v. abridging the freedom . v. Finally, California offers an example of a state that chooses toprotect the juvenile's name in all cases, regardless of whether any otherinformation pertaining to the offense is made public. [38] Ibid. 2667, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 (1979).United States v. [48] Ibid., 828. In such cases, a court mustdetermine if the danger the restraint seeks to prevent justifies thenecessary invasion of free speech.[7] Supreme Court Decisions The right of a state to protect the confidentiality of juvenileproceedings was recognized in In re Gault.[8] The Court noted thefollowing in Davis v. Dist. [28] Bradshaw, 578. [58] KGTV, 185. 555, 1 S.Ct. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.