U.S. v. Kooistra, 86-3003
| Decision Date | 14 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3003,86-3003 |
| Citation | 796 F.2d 1390 |
| Parties | 13 Media L. Rep. 1175 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jitze KOOISTRA, Defendant, Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
C. Gary Williams, Jann Johnson, Michael J. Glazer, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
David L. McGee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and BROWN *, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Tallahassee Democrat ("the Democrat") appeals from the district court's denial of its petition to intervene in this criminal case and its motion to unseal certain court documents. We remand for the district court to clarify its decision.
Defendant Kooistra was indicted on eight counts relating to a cocaine conspiracy. He pled not guilty. From then on, the case has been shrouded in secrecy. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the case is Kooistra's apparent change of heart concerning his plea. In June 1984, four months after the indictment, two sealed documents were filed with the court. By notice filed October 26, sentencing was scheduled for November 2, even though no trial had been held and no guilty plea was recorded. On October 31 a sealed motion was filed. Sentencing was then moved to January 24, 1985, and on that date Kooistra was sentenced on three counts. The transcript of the sentencing has been sealed. Four days later the court granted a government motion to dismiss the remaining counts against Kooistra. The transcript of a post-sentencing hearing in chambers and various related motions have also been sealed.
In December 1985, the Democrat filed its petition for limited intervention and motion to unseal. The court denied the motion without a hearing and without explanation.
On appeal the Democrat raises various contentions as to the value of public access to court proceedings, the news media's alleged right to notice before proceedings are closed or documents are sealed, and its purported entitlement to a hearing on the motion to unseal. None of these issues is now before us. We are confronted only with a narrow question: did the district court act properly in denying the Democrat's petition and motion?
We cannot at this point determine whether the district court's substantive determination was correct. The court did, however, err as to the form of its order. Because of the important interests at stake, and the careful balancing of interests required, when a court denies access to court documents its decision must be " 'articulated in findings' ... which appellate courts can review." See Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802 (11th Cir.1983) (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 581, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2839, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion of Burger, C.J.)). 1 The district court here articulated no reasons for its denial of the Democrat's motion and petition. The government, which otherwise argues in favor of keeping the records in question sealed, acknowledges that this was error.
We retain jurisdiction but remand so that the required findings may be entered. The findings need not be extensive. Indeed, should a court say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ochoa-Vasquez
...court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered."16 Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510, 104 S.Ct. 819; Kooistra, 796 F.2d at 1391 & n. 1. The court must also provide members of the public and press who are present with notice and an opportunity to be heard on a proposed ......
-
United States v. Thomas
...826 F.2d 218, 225-26 (3d Cir. 1987) (finding no error with "the district court’s somewhat brief findings"); see United States v. Kooistra , 796 F.2d 1390, 1391 (11th Cir. 1986) ("The findings need only be sufficient for a reviewing court to be able to determine, in conjunction with a review......
-
Subpoena to Testify Before Grand Jury Directed to Custodian of Records, In re
...F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983) (district court must disclose balance involved in closing criminal proceedings); accord, United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390 (11th Cir.1986). This is because those proceedings are presumptively open, and because that openness benefits the criminal justice syste......
-
Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, In re
...A district court must articulate its reasons for granting a protective order sufficient for appellate review. See United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390, 1391 (11th Cir.1986). Here, "the fear of adverse publicity, intimidation or other outside forces that could interfere with the free flo......