Kirk v. Commonwealth, 944 N.E.2d 135

Plaintiff found not guilty by reason of mental illness in Sept 2007 and committed to Taunton State Hospital under G.L. c. 123, §16.
In Nov 2009 the hospital notified intent to discharge and Commonwealth filed a recommitment petition under §16(e).
Before the recommitment hearing, plaintiff moved to close the proceeding to the public; hearing held Mar 2, 2010 in Taunton District Court; judge denied closure.
Court addresses whether civil recommitment hearings under §16(c) are presumptively open and how closure should be decided.
Court concludes recommitment proceedings are presumptively open; closure requires meeting the Waller v. Georgia four-part test with particularized findings.
In this case, plaintiff did not show an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced absent closure; judge’s denial affirmed and case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are §16(c) recommitment hearings presumptively open?	Cowin argues a privacy right requires closure.	Commonwealth argues openness is supported by tradition and statute does not mandate closure.	Yes; hearings are presumptively open.
What standard governs closure of recommitment hearings?	Cowin seeks closure under privacy/publicity concerns.	Commonwealth relies on Waller balancing framework.	Waller standard applies with four-part test and need for specific findings.
Did the trial judge err by denying closure without explicit findings?	Cowin contends failure to make findings supports reversal.	Commonwealth contends the judge implicitly applied relevant factors.	No error; findings not explicitly required on record for denial in this context.
Do statutes like G.L. c. 123, §36A compel closure of recommitment hearings?	Statutes protect privacy of reports/papers and private dockets.	These statutes do not address public hearings; do not compel closure.	Statutes do not compel closure; common-law openness governs.

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (foundational open-court/public-access principle in civil proceedings)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 455 Mass. 596 (1982) (public access tradition in Massachusetts civil trials)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth, 407 Mass. 879 (1990) (Massachusetts openness of courts; public trial tradition)
Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Dep’t of the Trial Court, 421 Mass. 502 (1995) (application of Waller balancing in Massachusetts context)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (two-part test for openness: tradition and positive function)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (balancing test for closure in open trials)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 417 Mass. 187 (1994) (four-part closure test and necessity of findings)
Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (2010) (public-trial right is not absolute; limitations exist)
Hashmi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607 (1983) (timing/notice in commitment proceedings)
Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392 (1884) (early articulation of public access to trials)