Free Speech

Juvenile Cases Transferred to Ordinary Criminal Court Can't Be Categorically Sealed


Juvenile cases have historically been litigated confidentially. Ordinary criminal cases have historically been litigated openly, and the First Amendment has been read as protecting that openness. What should happen when serious juvenile cases are transferred to ordinary criminal court? Here's one judge's answer, from today's ruling by Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford Courant Co. v. Carroll (D. Conn.):

[T]he Courant challenges the confidentiality provisions of Connecticut's recently enacted Juvenile Transfer Act, … which require that cases transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court be conducted in private and that judicial records in such cases remain under seal unless and until a verdict is rendered or the defendant pleads guilty. Arguing that these provisions violate the right of access to court proceedings and records guaranteed by the First Amendment …, the Courant seeks a declaration that the provisions are unlawful and an injunction against their enforcement….

[I grant] the Courant's motion for a preliminary injunction, which seeks … an order prohibiting Defendants from sealing any newly filed judicial records and requiring Defendants to unseal all judicial records that have previously been sealed under the challenged legislation….

Consistent with their rehabilitative goals, juvenile delinquency proceedings in Connecticut are confidential…. On July 9, 2019, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted the Juvenile Transfer Act …. The Act amended existing law governing the "transfer of matters involving certain criminal charges against persons who were between the ages of fifteen and eighteen at the time of the alleged offense from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket." Specifically, as discussed below, the Act restricted access to proceedings and records of matters transferred to the regular criminal docket, making them confidential….

The Courant provides examples of Transferred Matters that the newspaper cannot cover as a result of the Act:

  • The highly publicized prosecution of now 59-year-old Michael Skakel for the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley, which occurred when Skakel was 15 years old, has been retroactively sealed. Skakel was tried as an adult and convicted of the 1975 murder in 2002. But in 2018, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Courant alleges that Connecticut is "contemplating re-trying Skakel," but "Skakel's case has now been sealed pursuant to the Act." As a result, if Skakel is retried, neither the public nor the press would be able to attend any criminal proceedings or access judicial records.
  • "[T]he Courant will be unable to provide information to the public about the prosecution of a 16-year-old defendant charged with first-degree manslaughter in connection with the hit-and-run death of a 71-year-old woman during an alleged shoot-out in Hartford in October 2019."
  • The Courant cannot cover the prosecution of "16-year-old Alexander Bolanos, who was charged with conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the December 2018 drive- by shooting death of a 12-year-old in Bridgeport, Connecticut." ….

[T]he Courant has shown a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim….

It is well-established that "the First Amendment grants both the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials" and related criminal proceedings such as voir dire and preliminary hearings…. The proceedings at issue here in Transferred Matters are criminal prosecutions, including criminal trials and related pretrial proceedings, all of which take place on the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court. The statute specifically provides that "[u]pon the effectuation of the transfer, such child shall stand trial and be sentenced, if convicted, as if such child were eighteen years of age." It is clear, then, that the "place and process" involved here is one that has "historically been open to the press and general public"; the Supreme Court has held that the right of access to criminal prosecutions has a long historical pedigree. Even the history of Transferred Matters in the Connecticut Superior Court is consistent with this tradition: the Defendants admit that, "[p]rior to October 1, 2019, a case transferred from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket was public unless it was subsequently transferred to the Youthful Offender Docket" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-76h. The Defendants cite no case suggesting that the right of access to proceedings and court records in a criminal prosecution has ever hinged on the age or other personal characteristics of the defendant.

While it is true, as noted, that the Supreme Court has not determined whether a First Amendment right of access extends to juvenile delinquency proceedings, the Transferred Matters are criminal prosecutions, not juvenile delinquency proceedings. Juvenile delinquency proceedings "are fundamentally different from criminal proceedings," because they do not involve adjudications of guilt and … focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. An adjudication of delinquency requires the court not to mete out punishment on behalf of the community but to apply "services, sanctions and secure placements … in order to provide individualized supervision, care, accountability, and treatment" to the child. The goals of the juvenile justice system are not only to "[h]old juveniles accountable for their unlawful behavior" but also to provide therapeutic programs and services "designed to prevent reoffending and to effectively minimize the depth and duration of the juvenile's involvement in the juvenile justice system." … Juvenile delinquency proceedings therefore differ in both form and function from the criminal prosecutions at issue in this case and constitute a distinct "place and process," for purposes of assessing the First Amendment right of access.

The second prong of the Press Enterprise II test also supports a finding that the First Amendment right of access attaches to Transferred Matters because public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the judicial process in such matters. As with any criminal proceeding, public scrutiny of the Transferred Matters enhances quality, protects integrity, fosters an appearance of fairness, heightens respect, and permits the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process.

Transferred Matters involve charges of serious crimes in which the public has a clear interest and for which the juvenile defendants face severe potential punishments. The safeguards to the integrity of the factfinding process and the enhanced appearance of fairness that public access brings to judicial proceedings are not diminished by the age or other personal characteristics of the litigants. Both experience and logic, therefore, suggest that a qualified right of public access under the First Amendment attaches to Transferred Matters.

Defendants argue that transferring a case from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket does not change the age of the defendant or the state's associated interest in keeping the records about his or her case confidential. True, but the question for the moment is whether there is a First Amendment right of access at all; whether that right should prevail over countervailing interests is a separate question, which I address below. And, as shown, the age of the defendant does not alter the fundamental nature of the proceeding in a Transferred Matter, which becomes a criminal prosecution once the transfer occurs. In Globe Newspaper Co., the Court held that the First Amendment guaranteed a qualified right of access to criminal trials even during the testimony of minor victims of a sex offense. If the age of the victim does not affect whether there is a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings and records, there is no reason the age of the defendant should.

I thus agree with the Courant that the same qualified First Amendment right of access that has long attended criminal proceedings attaches to the Transferred Matters and applies to both the proceedings and the court records in these cases….

There's a good deal more, including about when the presumption of public access can be rebutted, but to see that you'll have to read the opinion.

NEXT: The "NO BAN Act" Would Modify The Statutory Regime That Authorized President Trump's Travel Bans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oddly, I got less sympathetic to the openness argument the more I read of the judge's decision. While true that the goals of the juvenile justice system are "not only to '[h]old juveniles accountable for their unlawful behavior' but also to provide therapeutic programs and services", how is that any less true for the adult system? Are we not also trying to provide programs that "prevent reoffending" by adults? (And if we're not, shouldn't we be?)

    Contrary to the judge's presumption, the age of the defendant does matter. It is in fact the primary consideration in deciding the balance of confidentiality. The Legislature clearly understood both the principle of openness for adults and confidentiality for juveniles and balanced their decision to try more juveniles as adults with a decision to continue to protect their privacy. You may disagree with the Legislature's choice but summarily overriding the balance they chose does not seem like an appropriate use of judicial discretion.

    1. The very fact of transferring a juvenile case to adult courts implies that the age of the defendant no longer matters. Yes, rehabilitation should be part of adult cases too, but it isn't, either by the law of openness or by practice.

  2. No court proceedings should be confidential. Personally, I have no idea if juvenile court proceedings are even remotely fair.

    1. That's how I feel too. The public is the ultimate enforcer of all judicial decisions, pays for them and the sentence, and needs to know if the decisions and punishment / rehabilitation are handled to its satisfaction.

    2. Having tried 500+ cases in Calif Dep Court . . . no, not particularly fair. No right to a jury, standard of proof at most stages is preponderance (ie, 50+%), and judges that can't get in trouble for ever finding abuse, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

      There are good judges there, and some excellent ones as well. But these are the exceptions, IMO . . . Children's Court is not seen as a desirable or prestigious location for most judges, so water tends to find its own level.

      1. I had a suspicion that the weren't. This is a case where child abuse pediatricians basically manufactured a case of Munchhausen syndrome by proxy, presumably to help their careers.

        Fortunately the judge was able to see through it, but the opinion gives the impression that juvenile court judges regularly accept unsubstantiated hearsay testimony and other unreliable testimony.

  3. And then Massachusetts is proposing trying everyone under age 22 in children's court....

  4. Somewhat related: A federal judge has ordered the release, this Thursday, July 30, of an old civil suit by Virginia Giufree against Ghislaine Maxwell. It names a bunch of high profile people.

  5. There are a lot of debates regarding the judge system for juvenile crimes! You could get connected with people at this website for having more ways to joy and fun across the world. I think a proper rehabilitation therapy system is required in the juvenile and adult judgment system that prevents reoffending.

Please to post comments