174 Conn. App. 298
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- American News & Information Services (petitioner) sought to video-record a murder trial; the trial court permitted recording subject to media restrictions and the state requested limits on recording certain witnesses and exhibits.
- After trial began, the petitioner requested copies of exhibits; the clerk denied copying for a subset (e.g., autopsy/crime‑scene photos), and the court orally stated some exhibits could be viewed but not copied, referencing a prior "sealing" order.
- Petitioner filed a petition for expedited review under General Statutes § 51-164x and Practice Book § 77-1, arguing the court limited disclosure of judicial documents without following Practice Book § 42-49A procedures (notice, findings, written order).
- The state argued no sealing/limitation order existed (only media‑coverage limits under Practice Book § 1-11C), or that any § 1-11C order is final and unreviewable.
- The Appellate Court treated the clerk's practice and the court's oral statements as effectively limiting disclosure (no‑copying), concluded the petition raised a colorable claim under § 51-164x, and vacated the no‑copying prohibition for failure to comply with Practice Book § 42-49A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellate Court has jurisdiction under § 51-164x over the petition | Court's oral ruling and clerk's denial effectively limited disclosure of exhibits (no copies) — a § 51-164x order | No order sealing/limiting disclosure existed; any restriction was a media‑coverage decision under Practice Book § 1-11C (final) | Petitioner made a colorable claim that disclosure was limited; Appellate Court has jurisdiction to review the claim |
| Whether a no‑copying directive constitutes a "limit[ation] on disclosure" under § 51-164x / Practice Book § 42-49A | Preventing copying curtails public access; common‑law right to inspect includes right to copy; no‑copying is a limitation requiring § 42-49A process | The order allowed viewing; restricting copying is not a limitation of disclosure but a permissible restriction tied to media coverage | A prohibition on making copies (absent statutory/other orders) limits disclosure and falls within § 51-164x/§ 42-49A scope |
| Whether the trial court complied with Practice Book § 42-49A procedural requirements | Court failed to give public notice, hold a hearing, articulate overriding interest, or issue a signed written order identifying exhibits | N/A (state primarily argued no § 42-49A order existed) | Court did not follow § 42-49A (no notice, findings, written order); vacated the no‑copying portion and directed compliance for any future order |
| Whether Practice Book § 1-11C authorized an unreviewable no‑copying order (making the order final) | N/A (petitioner argued § 1-11C does not authorize limiting clerk custody/exhibit copying without § 42-49A safeguards) | § 1-11C(h)/(f) permits limiting or precluding photographing/videoing of exhibits to protect compelling interests; § 1-11C(j) makes such media‑coverage decisions final and unreviewable | Majority: § 1-11C governs electronic coverage, not access/copying of court files; a no‑copying order limiting disclosure must follow § 42-49A. Dissent: § 1-11C authorizes no‑copying connected to no‑broadcast orders and thus is final (disagreed with majority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (federal common‑law right to inspect and copy judicial records)
- In re Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) (presumption favoring public inspection and copying of items entered into evidence at public trial)
- United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1986) (common‑law right to obtain copies of trial exhibits)
- State v. Komisarjevsky, 302 Conn. 162 (Conn. 2011) (presumption of public access to judicial documents; definition of "judicial document")
- Vargas v. Doe, 96 Conn.App. 399 (Conn. App. 2006) (vacating sealing order for failure to follow Practice Book procedural requirements)
- State v. Rupar, 293 Conn. 489 (Conn. 2009) (treatment of Practice Book § 1-11C finality language in media‑coverage context)
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 292 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2009) (history and rationale for public access to court proceedings and records)