Opinion ID: 1303664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Did the trial court adequately consider the public's interest in open proceedings and the qualified constitutional right to access?

Text: Argus argues that the trial court did not adequately consider the overwhelming public interest and the qualified constitutional right of access to open hearings. The trial court was not able to accurately assess these interests because there was no evidence presented at the access hearing; only argument of counsel. Argument by the parties' counsel is not evidence. SDCL 26-7A-36 specifically requires that the court find compelling reasons before opening juvenile hearings to the public. Despite the lack of evidence, the record clearly indicates the trial court considered the public interest. In its decision, the trial court wrote: There was no mention of having received a good many letters from the public about this case which, while hardly a final barometer of public opinion and thought, might give some small indication as to how the public perceived events. No other media group, save the KELO TV station, asked to be included in or moved to open the hearings. No other TV or radio stations, public or private, have asked entry and there are numerous stations in this area. Not even the victim's family has asked admittance. The point to be made is that the applicant suggests the public has this great driving interest in this case; yet it produces no evidence demonstrating so. Argus claims they have a qualified constitutional right of access. We agree; however, the legislature has modified this qualified right of access by requiring compelling reasons before such access will be permitted. SDCL 26-7A-36 is clear and unambiguous. The legislature did not intend to allow the media or the general public open access to juvenile hearings. There are obviously competing interests in this case between the public right to know and the juvenile's right to remain anonymous. Such competing interests were discussed in In re J.D.C., 594 A.2d 70, 76 (D.C.App.1991), where the court held: The competing interest of the press or of a member thereof to attend a specific juvenile proceeding stands on far less firm footing. Adult criminal trials have traditionally been open to the public, and representatives of the media have a right to attend them. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, [2825] 2829, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). These principles do not control, however, where the interests of a minor child are at issue. (cites omitted) As the court explained in Edward A. Sherman Publishing Co. v. Goldberg, ___ R.I. ___, 443 A.2d 1252, 1258 (1982), [t]he right of access to criminal trials as established in Richmond Newspapers ... does not apply to juvenile proceedings. The principal of an open trial has as its goals the protection of defendant against possible prosecutorial or judicial abuse. The interest of the juvenile, however, are most often best served by anonymity and confidentiality. In this case, the trial court correctly denied access to the juvenile hearings because the best interest of the child required keeping the proceedings closed. The purpose behind closed juvenile proceedings is to protectively rehabilitate juveniles, in which the maintenance of confidentiality is a necessary corollary of that purpose. San Bernardino Cty. DSS v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.3d 188, 283 Cal.Rptr. 332, 339 (4 Dist.1991). The Argus presented no evidence to outweigh this protective design, which would have prevailed over the service of such interest.