Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): there has been a presumption of openness and public access to judicial proceedings and documents. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 10, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. (Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501, 507, .104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). Addressing the presumption of access to judicial proceedings, in Press-Enterprise II, the Supreme Court held that there is a qualified right of public access to judicial proceedings, rooted in the First Amendment, if there is “a tradition of accessibility” to the nature of the proceedings involved and if p any, Inc., 828 F.2d 340, 345 (6th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>). With respect to the common law right of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper (B) recognizing that first amendment provides qualified right of access to judicial documents (C) holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case (D) holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable (E) holding that the first amendment right of access applies to a summary judgment motion in a civil case
Output (English): holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable