Court Opinion

ID: 9578578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:36.364236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:44.778164
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent, because I believe the sounder approach is to have but one rule for criminal cases and juvenile matters alike, and that being the rule handed down in R. W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576 (292 SE2d 815) (1982).
I point out that the extension of R. W. Page to juvenile matters is in keeping with the importance that our state has placed upon the openness of judicial proceedings. Further, inasmuch as there is no potential panel of veniremen to be tainted by undue publicity, open *474courtrooms present even less danger in juvenile matters than in criminal prosecutions.
As the majority seems to concede that no more than one out of a hundred juvenile matters would attract public attention (majority opinion, p. 473), it would seem more feasible that the procedure of R. W. Page should be adopted here, rather than the new rule as specified by the majority.