Opinion ID: 1427176
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Utah Constitutional Right of Public Access to Criminal Trials and Proceedings

Text: The cornerstone of democratic government is the conviction that governments exist at the sufferance of the people... . In re J.P., Utah, 648 P.2d 1364, 1372 (1982). All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require. Utah Const. art. I, § 2. That foundation principle of our state constitutional law is implemented in part by Article I, § 15: No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. See KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, 668 P.2d at 518-21 (discusses history of provision). The freedoms of speech and press are fundamental to the effective exercise of the ultimate political power of the people. If they are to exercise their sovereign power in an intelligent and responsible manner, the people must have free speech and a free press and access to operations of government. Democracy blooms where the public is informed and stagnates where secrecy prevails. Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557, 561, 490 P.2d 563, 567 (1971). As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed in State v. Williams, supra : In addition to kindling public misperception and eroding public confidence, closure of significant pretrial proceedings perpetuates general ignorance and cuts off public knowledge necessary to a full understanding of the criminal justice system. 93 N.J. at 54, 459 A.2d at 649. The people are and should be deeply interested and involved in the administration of justice. Their interest and involvement in the operations of the judicial branch should be informed. We therefore hold that the people have a constitutional right of public access to criminal trials and preliminary hearings, subject to the exceptions outlined hereafter. While this holding recognizes no greater rights of access in the news media than in the public at large, we recognize the reality of petitioner's contention that the media often act as surrogates in asserting the public's constitutional right of access, as petitioner does in this case. We also recognize and honor the fact that the exercise of access by the news media, coupled with a responsible exercise of its high public trust, will result in far more general dissemination of information about judicial proceedings than the attendance of any other members of the public. Our decision is supported by what we consider to be the better-reasoned state supreme court decisions on public access to preliminary hearings as a matter of right under state constitutions. In State v. Williams, supra , the New Jersey Supreme Court found that its constitutional provision on free press, which is phrased in substantially the same terms as Art. I, § 15 of the Utah Constitution, created a public right of access to a preliminary hearing, subject to exceptions where the court finds that pretrial publicity poses a realistic likelihood of prejudice to a fair trial... . 93 N.J. at 63, 459 A.2d at 654. In Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, 117 N.H. 959, 380 A.2d 261 (1977), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that its free press provision guaranteed that the press could not be excluded from a probable cause hearing without finding that a failure to close the hearing would pose a clear and present danger to a fair trial. And in Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. Jennings, supra , the Arizona Supreme Court relied on its free press provision and a provision for justice to be administered openly in holding that a preliminary hearing must be open unless circumstances exist which establish a clear and present danger that the judicial process will be subverted by an open hearing... . 490 P.2d at 566. [4] Two states have held that their state constitutions pose no obstacle to statutes or rules directing or permitting the closure of preliminary hearings. [5] We find the reasoning of these opinions unpersuasive.