217 A.3d 560
Vt.2019Background
- After a police shooting, the State opened an inquest and subpoenaed WCAX-TV (Gray Television) for unedited footage; Gray moved to quash citing the journalist-shield statute (12 V.S.A. § 1615).
- At the quash hearing the State sought closure; the trial court excluded the public from the evidentiary portion, granted the motion to quash, and sua sponte sealed the court’s written decision and the inquest file pending conclusion of the inquest.
- The State later announced no charges would be filed; Gray moved to unseal the February 16, 2018 decision; the trial court denied the motion, treating inquest records as categorically confidential under the Vermont Public Records Act (PRA).
- Gray appealed, arguing the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records (PACR Rules) govern court case records and that the decision is presumptively public; the State argued various PACR exceptions or statutory secrecy for inquests justified continued sealing.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the legal question de novo, held the PACR Rules (not the PRA) govern access to court case records, treated the quash order as a case record, found no PACR categorical exception applied, and concluded no case-specific basis existed to seal the order under PACR Rule 7.
- The Court reversed and ordered the February 16, 2018 decision unsealed.
Issues
| Issue | Gray (Appellant) Argument | State (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which access regime governs court case records: PACR or PRA? | PACR governs public access to court case records; PRA is for executive/agency records | PRA protections apply and can render inquest materials confidential | PACR governs access to court case records; PRA does not control requests to courts |
| Is the trial court’s quash order a court "case record"? | Yes; it is a written judicial decision issued in connection with a court-initiated inquest | Inquest is investigatory/executive; records should not be treated as ordinary court case records | The quash decision is a case record under PACR; inquests are court proceedings for access purposes |
| Do PACR Rule 6(b) categorical exceptions (or statutes) make inquest-related court orders nonpublic? | No; none of the enumerated exceptions expressly include inquest orders | Inquest secrecy and analogous PACR exceptions (search warrants, sealed evidence, transcripts) support treating the order as nonpublic | No categorical exception applies; Court will not read unlisted exemptions into Rule 6(b) or treat the quash order as statutorily exempt |
| If not categorically exempt, could the court properly seal under PACR Rule 7? | Sealing requires case-specific findings of good cause and exceptional circumstances; none exist here | Secrecy was needed at the hearing and could justify sealing | Court has discretion to seal, but record contained no specific facts supporting sealing; no remand needed and order must be unsealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (courts have supervisory power over their records)
- In re Sealed Documents, 172 Vt. 152 (Vt. 2001) (presumption of access overcome only by specific showing of substantial threat to law enforcement or privacy)
- In re Essex Search Warrants, 192 Vt. 559 (Vt. 2012) (PACR Rules govern access to search-warrant materials and court records)
- State v. Tallman, 148 Vt. 465 (Vt. 1987) (distinguishing agency PRA records from court records governed by more specific rules/statutes)
- In re D.L., 164 Vt. 223 (Vt. 1995) (inquest is investigatory but the court’s role is judicial)
- Rutland Herald v. Vermont State Police, 191 Vt. 357 (Vt. 2012) (discussing inquest records and public access)
- State v. Alexander, 130 Vt. 54 (Vt. 1971) (statutory secrecy in inquests limited to testimonial hearing content)