experience make clear that the answer is no state's men and in certain circumstances must treat juveniles charge of lunch the lunch once they are transferred to the criminal court aren't they treated in every respect like in a trial itself it's a jury trial it's for a serious crime you're facing many years in jail it's in a regular criminal court in all respects the trial is identical and we have said in new york civil liberties case making it open and all that all the reasons of fairness of any government abuse public confidence or the state discharging perjury government's conduct all those things apply equally to this type of proceeding or are we missing something i believe whe punitive component to it and the supreme court has held what are certain constitutional protections to those juveniles that they're not even guaranteed that they are going to be kept in a separate facility that they can be placed in many states in an adult underdog there's no guarantee upon the time the transfer that the kid will remain and will be prosecuted on the remote docket so you can also part of your rationale is that all of the defendants every one of the juveniles friends for to the regular criminal many other cases it's not just later access it's contemporaneous access you know as a district court judge i had ten cases that we transferred to adult status involving wedge murders involving and it's thirteen again there's a federal statute equipment to connecticut they would like a secret docket ten trials could potentially take place with nobody knowing about it the public not knowing about it and you know i think that's a problem and i was quite surprised to see the state of connecticut taking the position the st amendment does not apply to these types of default confidentiality rule here is the least restrictive roles usually usually to close the proceeding at the close of court room a judge has to make specific findings and then there's a presumption of openness and here release the information about a plea agreement or a conviction right since there is no right of access the state able to set up a policy and balance the interests of the public with the interest in protecting the defend i'm sorry could you repeat the question are there also some kind of limited release of the status of the human also even of the public doesn't have access to the details of the statute permits for a class a felony is in capital felonies that the the state has made the determination here that if a defendant has been acquitted then if the information or certainly has at the time about acquittal then they've already had that public education and there's no risk of that stigma attaching if the case never goes to verdict because it's transferred back our knowledge or just messed the family wants to have the public have access to the proceeding we think they're being treated unfairly and think it should be scrutinized as a defendant the been able to defendant has requested that and it's been denied and in fact there has been a at least one puff instance where defendant has requested that the proceeding be opened in a courthouse right of victims it seems the victims get access to the documents but there's no provision that says about opening proceed to anybody and also to a situation where a defendant is charged with one murder as an adult and one that he committed as a juvenile and under the statute you'd probably tried on the adult one and the looking at the time of the offense is consistent with the rules for who is eligible for juveniles so you can see proceedings who's eligible under does it affect the sort of the the sting's has an interest in protecting the defendant stated at the sole question presented this case is whether connecticut can consistent with the st amendment and act and enforce a statute that automatically and categorically seals all judicial records including docket sheets in criminal prosecutions in which the defendant was under the age of eighteen at the time the crime was committed as the district court correctly held longstanding president of the supreme court and of this court make clear that it cannot the preliminary injunction that was entered by the district court should be affirmed for the following reasons st contrary to defendant's arguments the st amendment presumption of access unequivocally applies here the supreme court has held and repeatedly reaffirmed that a constitutional presumption of openness in areas in the very nature of a criminal prosecution under our system of justice and that presumption is undergirded by in the words of the court a court under contradicted unbroken history supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past and this court has applied  the st amendment presumption of access not only to criminal trials themselves but to a wide range of pretrial and post trial criminal proceedings as well as to court dockets and documents filed in connection with criminal proceedings and in doing so  looked without exception just as the supreme court did in richmond newspapers in press enterprise one and press enterprise two and gloat not to the age of the criminal defendant but to the nature of the proceeding in question  before the court whether it would apply to youthful offender or juvenile delinquency proceedings i think the question there turns on the nature of the proceeding again at issue that the board the proceeding dies and the strength of the st amendment interest to the extent that whereas it's not the same for adults so why don't have also a principle in the law that says sometimes we dreams people differently if they do become good as an adult or juvenile even if they're part of the same process well the question before the court isn't about treatment of that you cannot defend and it's about the public's and the press as st amendment right of access to a proceeding and that that inquiry turns on the nature of the proceeding itself and there is a close relationship between the defendant th amendment right to a public trial and the public's st amendment right of access but those are distinct distinct rights and while while a defendant can waive its th amendment right to a public product at our docket excuse me at any time prior to a verdict or guilty plea being entered so that it is a possibility again i would think a remote possibility but i possibility i would say there's a you know we considered and the courts determining whether or not to transfer that case back but even setting that aside i think that the defendants have taken a position that doesn't apply in every case that may not apply in every case but district courts are to courts trial courts have the a high likelihood at some point this is going to transfer back to that particular case be sealed to some extent that would be the type of narrow provision it would certainly be more narrowly tailored than what that what we what we have here your hon and just to turn back to i would say turn back to of the st amendment right of access because i think that the defendant's arguments to the extent they have  any hope of success turn on this question of whether or not the st amendment right of access applies because i think it's pretty evident that the statute issue here is clearly not narrowly tailored and doesn't come over some of the considerations that apply to juvenile proceedings for interest in maintaining confidentiality the privacy of the individuals involved those interests don't disappear just because the cases transfer do th think i think i've responded that in in two ways or on our st i would say based on the transfer that that the the public the press has an interest that comes into play and that is why the presumption of access applies because of the nature of the proceeding at issue the certainly the district court below and i think this is important to emphasize that this report below fully credited the state's experts testimony over a fully considered the state's experts testimony over the pervert turns objections to that it fully credited the state's interest in preventing stigma from attaching to a juvenile defendant or the the sort of the stigma that can apply following a criminal conviction and you're not it recognizes that the state could have a compelling interest in a given case but the appropriate way of dealing with that interest is on a case by case basis as individual ceiling determinations in individual cases so it really is a question of  stigma of a criminal record or for the public's knowledge of a criminal conviction for that reason alone it's not further by that by this by this particular statute and certainly the staff is not narrowly tailored for the reasons that we've outlined in over the age of thirty at the time the the effective date of the act on october st two thousand and nineteen of those cases were sealed and there were some unknown number of defendants between uses of eighteen and twenty five and so that that alone i think demonstrate the state's interest this that this notion of protecting juveniles is just simply not forever by by this particular that would permit an individualized hearing to be sufficient to protect their interests but when a case is transferred to the court noted a note in the context of sentencing the judge often does not know then what she will learn about the offender the events of the course the proceedings and  case is automatically open then it could put later determine that the case should have been confidential there's no way to put that information back and even if the records sealed it will