Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[87WashLRev1203] An Open Courts Checklist: Clarifying Washington’s Public Trial and Public Access Jurisprudence

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lutzenhiser, Jeanine Blackett
dc.contributor.author Washington Law Review
dc.date.accessioned 2012-12-18T17:22:47Z
dc.date.available 2012-12-18T17:22:47Z
dc.date.issued 2012-12
dc.identifier.citation 87 Wash. L. Rev. 1203 (2012) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/1186
dc.description.abstract Author’s Note: As this issue went to press, the Washington State Supreme Court decided four cases involving the right to public trial and the open administration of justice: In re Personal Restraint of Morris, State v. Sublett, State v. Paumier, and State v. Wise. The fourteen separate opinions in these cases demonstrate that the Court is far from agreement, and that important questions regarding Washington’s open courts jurisprudence remain unanswered. In short, the decisions do not appear to definitively resolve the dilemmas that this Comment attempts to address and that trial courts still face. A response to these decisions in the June 2013 issue of this publication will more closely examine their impact on Washington open courts jurisprudence. Abstract: Fundamental to the American system of justice is the right to a public trial and a general presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. These values are reflected in the First and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and in many state constitutions. Washington is one of a number of states whose constitution (unlike the U.S. Constitution) also explicitly guarantees the open administration of justice. Constitutional dilemmas arise when a party requests the closure of a courtroom or the sealing of documents. These requests force courts to harmonize values of open justice with other compelling interests. U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia and Waller v. Georgia have provided guidance to states developing their own public trial jurisprudence. The Washington State Supreme Court used U.S. Supreme Court decisions to develop its own five-factor test for determining the constitutionality of closed proceedings in the criminal context in State v. Bone-Club. Since Bone-Club, however, many trial courts have failed to apply the factors articulated by the Court. This has resulted in many costly, highprofile reversals of convictions because of public trial violations. What could make the Bone- Club factors clearer and more practical for trial courts? This Comment argues that the Bone- Club test should become an “open courts checklist” that begins with a threshold question: Is the proposed action in fact a closure? If the answer is no, the rights to public access and public trial are not implicated. If the answer is yes, there remain six questions a trial court must ask on the record to evaluate the constitutionality of a proposed closure. Checklists have been employed in the fields of aviation and medicine for decades to ensure safety and procedural integrity. In a judicial context, an open courts checklist can provide clear, workable standards that will assist trial courts and leave a clear record for review. The goal is both improved judicial economy and the safeguarding of these essential constitutional rights and values. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.rights
dc.subject Comment en_US
dc.title [87WashLRev1203] An Open Courts Checklist: Clarifying Washington’s Public Trial and Public Access Jurisprudence en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2012 by Washington Law Review Association. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account