Commonwealth v. Barnes
461 Mass. 644
Mass.2012Background
- OpenCourt, a WBUR-FM pilot, began live streaming and archiving First Session proceedings from the Quincy District Court on May 2, 2011.
- Three petitions under G. L. c. 211, § 3 were consolidated by a single justice: Commonwealth’s challenge to posting a dangerousness hearing recording in Barnes; OpenCourt’s challenge to a redaction and temporary access in Barnes; and Diorio’s challenge to broadcasting and archiving of his July 5 arraignment and July 25 hearing.
- Rule 1:19 governs the use of cameras and electronic recording in Massachusetts courts; OpenCourt operates under rule 1:19, with voluntary guidelines and no formal OpenCourt-specific rules yet.
- OpenCourt uses the court’s microphones for audio and posts recordings after a two-business-day delay to allow redactions, with the option for parties to request redaction before or after posting.
- The court concluded that restricting OpenCourt’s ability to publish existing recordings is a form of First Amendment and art. 16 prior restraint, to be upheld only if narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means.
- The court remanded for guideline development by the judiciary-media committee and vacated the interim stay on OpenCourt’s archives in the Barnes matter (and noted no need to address the expired emergency stay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OpenCourt’s broadcast and archiving of court proceedings constitutes a prior restraint. | Commonwealth contends no First Amendment barrier to court control. | OpenCourt argues prior restraints apply; any restraint must be least restrictive. | Yes; restrictions on dissemination are prior restraints requiring compelling, least-restrictive justification. |
| Whether redacting the minor victim’s name in Barnes was a constitutional prior restraint. | Commonwealth asserts harms to privacy justify redaction. | OpenCourt policy supports redaction; no factual basis for compelled restraint. | Unconstitutional as a blanket, unsubstantiated prior restraint; not supported by sufficient findings. |
| Whether broadcasting Diorio’s arraignment and July 25 hearing violated his fair-trial rights. | Diorio asserts risk of prejudicial identification and counsel communication issues. | Recording posed no substantial likelihood of harm; remedies available (voir dire, cross-examination). | No reversible harm; allowed broadcasting and archiving. |
| Whether guidelines should be developed for OpenCourt’s operations. | Guidelines are necessary for consistent, constitutional implementation. | Current practice adequate; flexibility appropriate for pilot project. | Remand to judiciary-media committee to prepare guidelines; no stay of OpenCourt operations pending guidelines. |
| Whether OpenCourt’s relationship with the court amounted to an exclusive coverage arrangement requiring different treatment. | Not an exclusive arrangement; project is a pilot; governed by rule 1:19 and case-by-case decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (openness promotes fairness and public confidence in criminal justice)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (opening publicity; case-by-case compelled interest)
- Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (heavy presumption against prior restraints; compelling interest required)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (no constitutional right to a courtroom recording; First Amendment limits on restraint)
- George W. Prescott Publ. Co. v. Stoughton Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 428 Mass. 309 (1998) (high burden of justification for prior restraints; detailed factual findings required)
- Care & Protection of Edith, 421 Mass. 703 (1996) (context for articulating restraint standards in Massachusetts)