65 N.E.3d 1171
Mass.2017Background
- A 14-year-old defendant was video-recorded admitting to murder during a police interview; the recording and a transcript were admitted as exhibits at a pretrial suppression hearing.
- Defendant moved to suppress the statements and separately moved to impound (restrict public access to) the video and transcript if they were offered at the suppression hearing.
- The Superior Court judge denied the motion to impound after balancing the public's presumptive common-law right of access to judicial records against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial; he later issued an order forbidding duplication of the recording and transcript.
- The defendant sought interlocutory review; a single justice of the Appeals Court affirmed the denial; a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court vacated that affirmance and remanded, concluding the wrong legal standard may have been applied and urging a deeper balancing of factors.
- The full Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the single justice erred and whether the motion judge abused his discretion; the SJC concluded the judge applied the correct good-cause impoundment standard and did not abuse his discretion, particularly given the subsequent prohibition on duplication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for impoundment of exhibits admitted at a suppression hearing | Good-cause standard under Uniform Rules on Impoundment applies; judicial records presumptively public | Closure/strict-scrutiny (Waller) or suppression renders exhibits non-public | Good-cause impoundment standard governs; Waller strict scrutiny not required for impoundment of judicial records |
| Whether a recording admitted at a suppression hearing remains a judicial record even if later suppressed at trial | Recording admitted at suppression hearing becomes a judicial record and presumptively public | If evidence will be inadmissible at trial, it is not a public judicial record | Recording admitted at hearing is a judicial record; potential future inadmissibility is a factor but does not remove presumptive access |
| Whether the motion judge abused his discretion in denying impoundment | Judge failed to give sufficient weight to risk of prejudicial publicity and should have impounded | Judge appropriately balanced public access and fair-trial interests and later barred duplication | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed, particularly because copying was prohibited |
| Scope of public access (inspect only vs. copy) | Public may be permitted to inspect but copying increases prejudice risk; stronger protection needed | Public's presumptive access includes ability to copy under court rules | Judge's later order forbidding duplication is a permissible, lesser intrusion consistent with good-cause analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (strict-scrutiny test for closing proceedings to the public)
- The Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593 (framework for impoundment appeals and balancing Sixth Amendment fair-trial concerns)
- New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business in Suffolk County, 462 Mass. 76 (transcripts and evidence are judicial records)
- Commonwealth v. Winfield, 464 Mass. 672 (discussion of common-law presumption of access to judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (general right to inspect and copy judicial records)
- Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (extreme pretrial publicity from broadcast confession can deny due process)