Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Cnty. of Norfolk, 81-611

Citation457 U.S. 596,102 S.Ct. 2613,73 L.Ed.2d 248
Decision Date23 June 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-611,81-611
PartiesGLOBE NEWSPAPER COMPANY, Appellant v.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Appellee Massachusetts trial court, relying on a Massachusetts statute providing for exclusion of the general public from trials of specified sexual offenses involving a victim under the age of 18, ordered the exclusion of the press and public from the courtroom during the trial of a defendant charged with rape of three minor girls. Appellant newspaper publisher challenged the exclusion order, and ultimately, after the trial had resulted in the defendant's acquittal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court construed the Massachusetts statute as requiring, under all circumstances, the exclusion of the press and public during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial.

Held :

1. The fact that the exclusion order expired with completion of the trial at which the defendant was acquitted does not render the controversy moot within the meaning of Art. III. The controversy is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," since it can reasonably be assumed that appellant will someday be subjected to another order relying on the Massachusetts statute and since criminal trials are typically of short duration. Pp.602-603

2. The Massachusetts statute, as construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 603-607.

(a) To the extent that the First Amendment embraces a right of access to criminal trials, it is to ensure that the constitutionally protected "discussion of governmental affairs" is an informed one. The right of access to criminal trials in particular is properly afforded protection by the First Amendment both because such trials have historically been open to the press and public and because such right of access plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole. Pp. 603-606.

(b) The right of access to criminal trials is not absolute, but the circumstances under which the press and public can be barred are limited. The State must show that denial of such right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Pp.606-607 3. The Massachusetts statute cannot be justified on the basis of either the State's interest in protecting minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment or its interest in encouraging such victims to come forward and testify in a truthful and credible manner. Pp. 607-610.

(a) Compelling as the first interest is, it does not justify a mandatory closure rule. Such interest could be just as well served by requiring the trial court to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the State's legitimate concern for the minor victim's well-being necessitates closure. Such an approach ensures that the constitutional right of the press and public to gain access to criminal trials will not be restricted except where necessary to protect the State's interest. Pp. 607-609.

(b) The second asserted interest is not only speculative in empirical terms but is also open to serious question as a matter of logic and common sense. Although the statute was construed to bar the press and public from the courtroom during a minor sex victim's testimony, the press is not denied access to the transcript, court personnel, or any other source that could provide an account of such testimony, and thus the statute cannot prevent the press from publicizing the substance of that testimony, as well as the victim's identity. Pp.609-610. 383 Mass. 838, 423 N.E.2d 773, reversed.

James F. McHugh, III, Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Mitchell J. Sikora, Jr., Boston, Mass., for appellee.

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 16A of Chapter 278 of the Massachusetts General Laws,1 as construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, requires trial judges, at trials for specified sexual offenses involving a victim under the age of 18, to exclude the press and general public from the courtroom during the testimony of that victim. The question presented is whether the statute thus construed violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

I

The case began when appellant, Globe Newspaper Co. (Globe), unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to a rape trial conducted in the Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The criminal defendant in that trial had been charged with the forcible rape and forced unnatural rape of three girls who were minors at the time of trial—two 16 years of age and one 17. In April 1979, during hearings on several preliminary motions, the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed.2 Before the trial began, Globe moved that the court revoke this closure order, hold hearings on any future such orders, and permit appellant to intervene "for the limited purpose of asserting its rights to access to the trial and hearings on related preliminary motions." App. 12a-14a. The trial court denied Globe's motions,3 relying on Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 278, § 16A (West 1981), and ordered the exclusion of the press and general public from the courtroom during the trial. The defendant immediately objected to that exclusion order, and the prosecution stated for purposes of the record that the order was issued on the court's "own motion and not at the request of the Commonwealth." App. 18a.

Within hours after the court had issued its exclusion order, Globe sought injunctive relief from a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.4 The next day the justice conducted a hearing, at which the Commonwealth, "on behalf of the victims," waived "whatever rights it [might] have [had] to exclude the press." Id., at 28a.5 Nevertheless Globe's request for relief was denied. Before Globe appealed to the full court, the rape trial proceeded and the defendant was acquitted.

Nine months after the conclusion of the criminal trial, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its judgment, dismissing Globe's appeal. Although the court held that the case was rendered moot by completion of the trial, it nevertheless stated that it would proceed to the merits, because the issues raised by Globe were "significant and troublesome, and . . . 'capable of repetition yet evading review.' " Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 379 Mass. 846, 848, 401 N.E.2d 360, 362 (1980), quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). As a statutory matter, the court agreed with Globe that § 16A did not require the exclusion of the press from the entire criminal trial. The provision was designed, the court determined, "to encourage young victims of sexual offenses to come forward; once they have come forward, the statute is designed to preserve their ability to testify by protecting them from undue psychological harm at trial." 379 Mass., at 860, 401 N.E.2d, at 369. Relying on these twin purposes, the court concluded that § 16A required the closure of sex-offense trials only during the testimony of minor victims; during other portions of such trials, closure was "a matter within the judge's sound discretion." Id., at 864, 401 N.E.2d, at 371. The court did not pass on Globe's contentions that it had a right to attend the entire criminal trial under the First and Sixth Amendments, noting that it would await this Court's decision—then pending—in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980).6

Globe then appealed to this Court. Following our decision in Richmond Newspapers, we vacated the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that decision. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 449 U.S. 894, 101 S.Ct. 259, 66 L.Ed.2d 124 (1980).

On remand, the Supreme Judicial Court, adhering to its earlier construction of § 16A, considered whether our decision in Richmond Newspapers required the invalidation of the mandatory closure rule of § 16A. 383 Mass. 838, 423 N.E.2d 773 (1981).7 In analyzing the First Amendment issue,8 the court recognized that there is "an unbroken tradition of openness" in criminal trials. Id., at 845, 423 2d, at 778. But the court discerned "at least one notable exception" to this tradition: "In cases involving sexual assaults, portions of trials have been closed to some segments of the public, even when the victim was an adult." Id., at 846, 423 N.E.2d, at 778. The court also emphasized that § 16A's mandatory closure rule furthered "genuine State interests," which the court had identified in its earlier decision as underlying the statutory provision. These interests, the court stated, "would be defeated if a case-by-case determination were used." Id., at 851, 423 N.E.2d, at 779. While acknowledging that the mandatory-closure requirement results in a "temporary diminution" of "the public's knowledge about these trials," the court did not think "that Richmond Newspapers require[d] the invalidation of the requirement, given the statute's narrow scope in an area of traditional sensitivity to the needs of victims." Id., at 851, 423 N.E.2d, at 781. The court accordingly dismissed Globe's appeal.9

Globe again sought review in this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U.S. 1051, 102 S.Ct. 594, 70 L.Ed.2d 586 (1981). For the reasons that follow, we reverse, and hold that the mandatory-closure rule contained in § 16A violates the First Amendment.10

II

In this Court, Globe challenges that portion of the trial court's order, approved by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, that holds that § 16A requires, under all circumstances, the exclusion of the press and general public during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial. Because the entire order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1444 cases
  • Courthouse News Serv. v. Yamasaki
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • May 9, 2018
    ...Co. v. Super. Ct. , 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (" Press–Enterprise II "); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. , 457 U.S. 596, 598, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). All rights of access thus stem from notions of government legitimacy and informed citizen participatio......
  • In re Judicial Qualifications Comm'n Formal Advisory Op. No. 239
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 30, 2016
    ...Press – Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982) ; State v. Brown, 293 Ga. 493, 748 S.E.2d 376 (2013).19 There is nothing inherently wrong with the C......
  • Level 3 Communications v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07cv589.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 30, 2009
    ...was embraced (and expounded upon further) by a majority of the Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 603-07, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982), which also noted that "in the broadest terms, public access to criminal trials permit......
  • Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 24, 2019
    ...there is a qualified right of access under the First Amendment to attend criminal trials.11 ( Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 457 U.S. 596, 603, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [striking down as unconstitutional a state statute mandating that the testimony of minor victims in cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
21 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...v. State, 967 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. dism’d as improv. granted ), §§1:55, 3:32.2 Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982), §15:130.8 Goad v. State, 354 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), §15:121.4 Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2021 Contents
    • August 16, 2021
    ...by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). Whether the right to a public trial has been infringed upon is better determined by balancing the interests inv......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). Whether the right to a public trial has been infringed upon is better determined by balancing the interests inv......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2017 Contents
    • August 17, 2017
    ...by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). Whether the right to a public trial has been infringed upon is better determined by balancing the interests inv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT