This is an appeal from the denial by the Court of Appeals of an application for relief in the nature of prohibition. The sole issue presented is whether a trial judge was proceeding erroneously when at the request of 10 male victims under the age of 12, and without objection by the defendant, he or *906 dered the courtroom closed to the entire public and press during their testimony. The ordеr also provided that either the tapes or transcripts of the testimony of these witnesses would be released to the public at the end of the trial. The reason given by the trial judge for his action was that “it would greatly minimize the psychological and emotional trаuma to the alleged juvenile victims.”
It is evident from the record that the trial judge was laudably concerned with the welfare of the minor victim’s witnesses. Indeed, at first glance it does not appear that the court improperly exercised its discretion in acting to prоtect the minors. It is well recognized that a trial judge has inherent authority to exclude spectators from the courtroom in order tо protect witnesses where, as here, there has been a finding by the court of potential harm which will result from unrestricted public attеndance.
“It cannot be doubted that a trial judge has authority to exclude the young from his court room during a trial where unsavory and vulgar еvidence will be produced. Also, he may protect a child witness, who from the nature of the case must testify to revolting facts, by excluding morbid, prurient, curious and sensation-seeking persons from the court room, so long as he does not abuse his discretion and deprive the accused of the right to have his family and friends present as well as a reasonable portion of the public. Such limited exclusion of people from the court room when resorted to in the exercise of a reasonable and sound discretion does not violate Sec. 11 of the Constitution granting the accused a publiс trial.”
Beauchamp v. Cahill,
But, upon reflection, error below becomes apparent. Public trials are highly favored in the Commonwealth. The courtrоom doors may be closed to the general public only on a rare occasion after a determination that in no other way can justice be served.
“The principle that justice can not survive behind walls of silence is so deeply imbedded in our Anglo-Ameriсan judicial system as to give our people in today’s modern society a deep distrust of secret trials. One of the strongest demands of a democratic system is that the public should know what goes on in their courts. This demand can only be met by permitting them to be present in person and by permitting the press who have the facilities to properly inform them to be present upon their behalf. It is insisted by somе the right to public trial is solely for the benefit of the criminal defendant and if he has no objection to a closed trial then the publiс should not be permitted to object. This contention overlooks the fact that the public is a party to all criminal proceedings. The proceeding is prosecuted in the name of the public. In our opinion there is nothing that better protects the rights of the public than their presence in proceedings where these rights are on trial. The news media should be accorded some priority in this respect for they have the facilities to disseminate the information of what transpires to a much broader audience than those who can gather in a crowded court room.”
Johnson v. Simpson, supra at 646. (Citations omitted).
The most important characteristics of the judiciary are integrity and credibili *907 ty. Courtrooms are kept open not so that members of the public can expose wrongdoings; rather, they are opеn to allow the citizens to see for themselves how their laws are impartially applied. It is to the benefit of a free sociеty that judicial proceedings be publicly conducted. Not only are all citizens to be treated equally under the law—they must be able to see that they are equally treated in their courts.
The trial judge took cognizance of the delicate and distasteful mattеrs about which the young witnesses were to testify and decided that they would suffer less embarrassment and emotional trauma if such testimony werе given in a closed courtroom. We do not quarrel with his concern. The problem is, however, that by the very nature of certain trials, сivil as well as criminal, this embarrassment and emotional strain commonly occur. One can think of instances in trials involving rape, incest, sodomy, criminal conversation, paternity, child abuse, seduction of a minor, loss of consortium, alienation of affection, divorсe, child custody, fraud, etc., where the witnesses, child and adult alike, will be greatly embarrassed and traumatized by testifying publicly. Yet this embarrassmеnt and trauma has not been deemed sufficient justification to bar “a reasonable portion of the public” from these proсeedings. Beauchamp v. Cahill, supra. Embarrassment and emotional trauma to witnesses simply do not permit a trial judge to close his courtroom to the entire рublic.
Our cases declare that representatives of the news media enjoy the same right of access to public information as is available to any other member of the public, but that this right does not exceed the right of any other member of the public.
Johnson v. Simpson, supra
at 647;
Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Curtis,
Ky.,
Other courts have recognized the propriety of closing a courtroom to the public in cases where identities of undercover agents were to be kept secret,
United States ex rel. Lloyd v. Vincent,
2d Cir.,
Wе are advised that the trial of the sodomy case has been completed and that its result is to be appealed. In the evеnt that there should be a reversal and a new trial, the trial judge should be prohibited from excluding the entire public and press from the courtroom.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for the entry of a judgment consistent herewith.