Globe Newspaper Co.
461 Mass. 113
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Globe sought inspection of the inquest report and transcript into Seth Bishop's death after Amy Bishop was indicted for murder in the first degree.
- The inquest report and transcript were filed and impounded in Superior Court following a District Court inquest.
- A judge denied Globe’s inspection request, citing Kennedy principles for impoundment.
- Legislation enacted in 1992, G. L. c. 38, § 10, addressed impoundment of inquest transcripts and courts’ handling of such records.
- The single justice reserved and reported, remanding for reform consistent with the opinion’s guidance on access to impounded materials.
- The court ultimately remands to apply new standards balancing public access with fair trial and privacy concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §10 supersedes Kennedy for transcript impoundment | Globe argues Kennedy no longer governs once §10 exists. | Bishop contends §10 governs and transcripts may become public after indictment. | Transcript presumption is now public after indictment under §10. |
| Whether inquest report remains impounded after transcript becomes public | Globe asserts report should follow Kennedy impoundment rules. | State contends report remains subject to common-law impoundment considerations. | Report is presumptively public when transcript becomes public; ten-day extension applies for impoundment; further motion governing ongoing impoundment. |
| What is the proper procedural path for review of impoundments going forward | Civil/criminal practice should align with Uniform Rules; broad access possible. | Proceedings should resemble uniform rules with controlled access. | Future review should hew to uniform rules; appellate review to single justice of Appeals Court; ten-day delay framework maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Justice of the Dist. Court of Dukes County, 356 Mass. 367 (Mass. (1969)) (set Kennedy impoundment framework for inquest records)
- Newspapers of New England, Inc. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 403 Mass. 628 (Mass. (1988)) (statute directs public-docket disclosure; impoundment principles discussed)
- Halebian v. Berv, 457 Mass. 620 (Mass. (2010)) (statutory interpretation and negative implication cautions in statutory construction)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. (1979)) (public access vs. fair trial; strong presumption of public access balancing with due process)
- Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593 (Mass. (2000)) (impoundment governed by public-record principles; balancing test)
- Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218 (Mass. (2004)) (impoundment in criminal proceedings; good-cause standard applied)
- Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539 (Mass. (1977)) (predecessor on impoundment concerns and access to court records)
- New Bedford Standard-Times Publ. Co. v. Clerk of the Third Dist. Court of Bristol, 377 Mass. 404 (Mass. (1979)) (statutory impoundment limits and public access implications)