Court Opinion

ID: 2963545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:44.286263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:42.911502
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 94-2170

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   THREE JUVENILES,
                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                               GLOBE NEWSPAPER COMPANY,
                               Intervenor - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               Jonathan  M. Albano,  with whom  Mark  W. Batten,  Alicia L.
               ___________________              _______________   _________
          Downey and Bingham, Dana & Gould, were on brief for appellant.
          ______     _____________________
               Eileen Penner,  Attorney, Department of  Justice, with  whom
               _____________
          Deval  L.  Patrick,  Assistant   Attorney  General,  and  Jessica
          __________________                                        _______
          Dunsay Silver, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on brief for
          _____________
          appellee, United States.

                                 ____________________

                                    July 31, 1995
                                 ____________________

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.   This  appeal requires  us to
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge
                    _______________________

          interpret and apply the confidentiality provisions of the Federal

          Juvenile Delinquency Act (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C.    5031-5042.  We

          hold  that the Act authorizes,  but does not  mandate, closure of

          juvenile  proceedings.   Although we  disagree with  the district

          court's interpretation of the  statute, we nevertheless find that

          the  court's  decision to  close the  proceedings was  within its

          discretion and proper under the Act.

                                          I.
                                          I.

                    On  July  19,   1994,  the  government  charged   three

          juveniles with civil rights violations under the Federal Juvenile

          Delinquency Act (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C.    5031-5042.  The charges

          involved "hate  crimes" allegedly  committed by the  juveniles as

          members of a white supremacist  group.  On the same day  that the

          juveniles were charged, the  grand jury indicted an adult,  Brian

          Clayton,  with  violations  of 18  U.S.C.     241 (conspiracy  to

          violate civil  rights) and    371 (conspiracy  to intimidate  and

          interfere  with  federally  protected  activities  on account  of

          race).    The indictment  charges  that  Clayton committed  these

          violations as a  member of  the same white  supremacist group  to

          which the three juveniles allegedly belonged.

                    Just prior  to the juveniles' arraignments  on July 20,

          1994, intervenor-appellant Globe Newspaper Company  (the "Globe")

          moved to  intervene in the  juvenile proceedings for  purposes of

          gaining access to the arraignments and subsequent proceedings, as

          well  as to any judicial documents filed in connection with those

                                         -2-

          proceedings.   The district court allowed the  Globe to intervene

          and granted  it access to  certain redacted court  documents, but

          denied  public access to the  arraignments on the  grounds that  

          5038  of the  Act mandated  closure of  the proceedings.   United
                                                                     ______

          States v. Three Juveniles, Globe Newspaper Co., 862 F. Supp. 651,
          ______    ____________________________________

          658 (D. Mass. 1994).  The court alternatively held  that, even if

          closure  were discretionary,  it would  close the  proceedings in

          this case.  See id. at 658.  The Globe argues on appeal  that the
                      ___ __

          First   Amendment  creates   a  right   of  access   to  juvenile

          proceedings, that  the district  court erred by  interpreting the

          Act  to mandate  closure of  juvenile proceedings,  and that  the

          factors set forth and  relied upon by  the district court in  its

          opinion are not sufficiently compelling to justify closure of the

          proceedings.

                                         II.
                                         II.

                    The  issues  presented  by   this  appeal  involve  the

          interpretation and constitutionality of certain provisions of the

          Act.   Because these are purely  questions of law,  our review is

          plenary.   See United States  v. Gifford,  17 F.3d 462,  472 (1st
                     ___ _____________     _______

          Cir. 1994); see also United States v. M.I.M., 932 F.2d 1016, 1019
                      ________ _____________    ______

          (1st Cir.  1991) (district  court's interpretation of  statute is

          reviewed de novo).
                   __ ____

                    The  Act  governs  the  detention  and  disposition  of

          juveniles charged with delinquency.  18 U.S.C.    5031-5037.  The

          statute  also contains confidentiality  provisions, set  forth in

                                         -3-

             5032  and 5038.1   Enacted in 1938,  the Act was  intended "to
                              
          ____________________

          1  Section 5032 provides in relevant part that:

                      . . . any proceedings against [an alleged
                      juvenile  delinquent]  shall  be   in  an
                      appropriate district court of  the United
                      States.  For such purposes, the court may
                      be convened at any  time and place within
                      the  district,  in chambers  or otherwise
                                      _________________________
                      . . . .
           
          18 U.S.C.    5032 (emphasis  added).  The  second confidentiality
          provision,   5038, provides that:

                      (a) Throughout and upon the completion of
                      the juvenile  delinquency proceeding, the
                      records   shall   be   safeguarded   from
                      disclosure to unauthorized persons.   The
                      records  shall be released  to the extent
                      necessary    to   meet    the   following
                      circumstances:

                         (1) inquiries received from another
                         court of law; 
                         (2)   inquiries   from  an   agency
                         preparing a  presentence report for
                         another court;
                         (3) inquiries  from law enforcement
                         agencies  where   the  request  for
                         information   is  related   to  the
                         investigation  of  a  crime   or  a
                         position within that agency;
                         (4) inquiries, in writing, from the
                         director of a  treatment agency  or
                         the director of a facility to which
                         the juvenile has been  committed by
                         the court;
                         (5)   inquiries   from  an   agency
                         considering   the   person  for   a
                         position  immediately and  directly
                         affecting  the  national  security;
                         and
                         (6)  inquiries  from any  victim of
                         such  juvenile  delinquency, or  if
                         the  victim  is  deceased from  the
                         immediate  family  of such  victim,
                         related to the final disposition of
                         such  juvenile  by  the   court  in
                         accordance with section 5037.

                                         -4-

          provide  for the  care  and treatment  of juvenile  delinquents."

          H.R. Rep.  No. 2617, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1938).  "[T]he Act's

          underlying purpose is to  rehabilitate, not to punish, so  as 'to

          assist  youths  in becoming  productive  members  of our  society

          . . .'."   In re Sealed  Case (Juvenile Transfer),  893 F.2d 363,
                     ______________________________________

          367 (D.C.  Cir. 1990) (quoting  S. Rep. No.  1011, 93d  Cong., 2d

          Sess.  22 (1974)); accord United  States v. Welch,  15 F.3d 1202,
                             ______ ______________    _____

          1211 n.12 (1st Cir. 1993), cert.  denied, 114 S. Ct. 1863 (1994).
                                     ____   ______

          To  this end,  the Act  attempts to  insulate juveniles  from the

          stigma of a criminal record.  In re Sealed Case, 893 F.2d at 367-
                                        _________________

          68; see  also S. Rep.  No. 1989,  75th Cong., 3d  Sess. 1  (1938)
              _________
                              
          ____________________

                      Unless   otherwise  authorized   by  this
                      section,  information about  the juvenile
                      record  may  not  be  released  when  the
                      request for information is related  to an
                      application   for   employment,  license,
                      bonding, or any civil right or privilege.
                      Responses to such inquiries shall  not be
                      different   from  responses   made  about
                      persons who have never been involved in a
                      delinquency proceeding . . . .

                      (c)  During the  course  of any  juvenile
                      proceeding,  all information  and records
                      relating  to  the  proceeding, which  are
                      obtained or prepared  in the discharge of
                      an  official duty  by an employee  of the
                      court  or  an   employee  of  any   other
                      governmental   agency,   shall   not   be
                      disclosed   directly  or   indirectly  to
                      anyone  other than the judge, counsel for
                      the  juvenile  and  the   Government,  or
                      others  entitled  under  this section  to
                      receive juvenile records . . . .

                      (e) Unless a juvenile  who is taken  into
                      custody is prosecuted as an adult neither
                      the  name  nor  picture of  any  juvenile
                      shall be made public in connection with a
                      juvenile delinquency proceeding . . . .

                                         -5-

          ("[A]  juvenile  delinquent  for  whom  there  is  some  hope  of

          rehabilitation should not receive the stigma of a criminal record

          that  would   attach  to  him   throughout  his  life.").     The

          confidentiality  provisions  of  the  Act  are   therefore  quite

          essential  to   the  Act's  statutory   scheme  and   overarching

          rehabilitative purpose.

                    Based on its reading of the statute and its legislative

          history, the district  court held  that the Act  allowed it  some

          discretion to disclose information about juvenile proceedings, so

          long as the disclosure does not contravene the "express  mandate"

          of   5038(e)  that the juvenile's  name and  picture not be  made

          public.   862 F.  Supp. at  658.  This  construction of  the Act,

          according  to the  district court,  is also  consistent  with the

          Supreme  Court's First  Amendment jurisprudence.   Id.  at 655-56
                                                             __

          (citing, inter  alia, Globe Newspaper  Co. v. Superior  Court for
                   _____  ____  ____________________    ___________________

          the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 608 (1982)).  We turn now to
          _____________________

          the Globe's contention  that the district court's  interpretation

          was in error.

                                         III.
                                         III.

                    As  the district  court recognized, the  Act implicates

          First  Amendment concerns, and thus must  be interpreted with the

          Supreme Court's  First Amendment  jurisprudence in  mind.  It  is

          well-settled that the First Amendment provides a  right of public

          access to most proceedings  growing out of adult criminal  cases.
                                                     _____

          See  Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 3 (1986)
          ___  ____________________    ______________

          ("Press-Enterprise II") (First Amendment provides right of access
            ___________________

                                         -6-

          to transcript of preliminary  hearing of a criminal prosecution);

          Press-Enterprise Co.  v. Superior  Court of California,  464 U.S.
          ____________________     _____________________________

          501,  508-510  (1984)  ("Press-Enterprise  I")  (First  Amendment
                                   ___________________

          creates  "presumption of  openness" of  voir dire  proceedings in
                                                  ____ ____

          criminal case);  Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.  Virginia, 448 U.S.
                           _________________________     ________

          555, 580 (1980) (plurality opinion) (the public's right to attend

          criminal trials  is implicit  in First Amendment's  guarantees).2

          This  First Amendment right  of access is  not absolute, however.

          Competing  values and interests may warrant a denial of access to

          proceedings and records in some situations.  Press-Enterprise II,
                                                       ___________________

          478 U.S. at 9;  see also Rivera-Puig v. Garc a-Rosario,  983 F.2d
                          ________ ___________    ______________

          311, 314 (1st Cir. 1992).   In such a case, reviewing courts must

          determine whether  the closure  is "essential to  preserve higher

          values" and "narrowly tailored to  serve that interest."   Press-
                                                                     ______

          Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510.
          ____________

                    Since  the  "Juvenile  Court" movement  began  in  this

          country at the end of the last century, all  states, the District

          of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have adopted juvenile court systems.

          See In re Gault, 387  U.S. 1, 14 (1967).  The development  of the
          ___ ___________

          juvenile justice system throughout the country has been marked by

          a "special sensitivity" about information regarding juveniles and

          "the  impact that  public dissemination  of such  information may
                              
          ____________________

          2    Although some  circuits have  recognized  a public  right of
          access  to  civil  trials   as  well,  see,  e.g.,  Republic   of
                                                 ___   ____   _____________
          Philippines v.  Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,  949 F.2d 653,  659 (3d
          ___________     ________________________
          Cir.  1991),  this Circuit  has never  decided whether  the First
          Amendment mandates such a  general right of access.   Anderson v.
                                                                ________
          Cryovac,  Inc., 805 F.2d  1, 10-11 (1st  Cir. 1986).   We find it
          ______________
          unnecessary to do so here.

                                         -7-

          have  on the  youths  involved."    United  States  v.  A.D.,  PG
                                              ______________      _________

          Publishing  Co.,  28   F.3d  1353,  1357  (3d   Cir.  1994)  ("PG
          _______________                                                __

          Publishing").   Accordingly, many, if not  most, states currently
          __________

          authorize  or  mandate closure  of  juvenile  proceedings.3   The

          Supreme   Court  has   also   acknowledged  this   tradition   of

          confidentiality of juvenile proceedings.  See, e.g., In re Gault,
                                                    ___  ____  ___________

          387 U.S.  at 25 ("[T]here is no reason why, consistently with due

          process, a  State cannot  continue, if it  deems appropriate,  to

          provide  and  to improve  provision  for  the confidentiality  of

          records  of   police  contacts  and  court   action  relating  to

          juveniles.").

                    The  Supreme Court  has  never determined  whether  the

          First  Amendment  right of  public  access  attaches to  juvenile

          proceedings, and  thus has  not decided whether  across-the-board

          closure of such proceedings violates the First Amendment.  See PG
                                                                     ___ __

                              
          ____________________

          3  See,  e.g., Ala. Code 12-15-65(a); Alaska  Stat. 47.10.070(a);
             ___   ____
          Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 54-76h; D.C. Code Ann. 16-2316(e); Ga. Code
          Ann. 15-11-28(c); Hawaii  Rev. Stat. Tit. 31  s. 571-41(b); Idaho
          Juv.  R. 22(b); Ill. Rev. Stats. Ch.  705 s. 405/l-5(6); Ky. Rev.
          Stat.  Ann. 610.070(3);  Miss. Code  Ann. 43-21-203(6);  Mo. Ann.
          Stat. 211.171(5); Nev. Rev. Stat. 62.193(1); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
          169-B:34;  N.D.  Cent. Code  27-20-24(5);  Pa.  Cons. Stat.  Ann.
          6336(d);  R.I.  Gen. L.  14-1-30; S.C.  Code Ann.  20-7-755; S.D.
          Codified Laws Ann. 26-7A-36;  Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 33  s. 5523(c);
          Va.  Code 16.1-302; Wash. Rev.  Code Ann. 13-34.110;  W. Va. Code
          49-5-1(d); Wis.  Stat. Ann. 48-299(1)(a); Wyo.  Stat. 14-6-224(b)
          (all authorizing or requiring that the general public be excluded
          from juvenile proceedings).   See also Calif. Welf. &  Inst. Code
                                        ________
          676(a); Me. Rev.  Stat. Ann.  Tit. 15 s.  3307(2)(B); Mass.  Gen.
          Laws Ann. ch. 119 s. 65; Minn. Stat. Ann. 260.155(c); Okla. Stat.
          Ann. Tit. 10 s. 1111(A)(1); Tex.  Fam. Code Ann. 54-08; Utah Code
          Ann.  78-3a-33(2)   (all   barring  the   public  from   juvenile
          proceedings  except  for  those   involving  certain  classes  of
          offenses,  such as  murder, or  when the  juvenile is  older than
          fifteen years). 

                                         -8-

          Publishing,  28  F.3d  at 1357.    In  a  very instructive  case,
          __________

          however, the Court addressed whether the First Amendment allows a

          statutory bar  to public access  to adult criminal  trials during

          the  testimony of sex-offense victims who are minors.  See Globe,
                                                                 ___ _____

          457 U.S. at  607.   Although the Supreme  Court acknowledged  the

          compelling state interests of protecting the victims from further

          trauma and  embarrassment and  encouraging other victims  to come

          forward, it  held that neither interest  sufficiently justified a

          blanket closure  in every  case involving a  youthful sex-offense

          victim.  Id. at 607.  The Court explained:
                   __

                      [A]s  compelling  as  that  interest  [in
                      protecting the minor victims] is, it does
                      not justify a mandatory closure rule, for
                                    _________
                      it is clear that the circumstances of the
                      particular    case    may   affect    the
                      significance  of the  interest.   A trial
                      court  can  determine  on a  case-by-case
                      basis  whether  closure  is necessary  to
                      protect   the   welfare   of    a   minor
                      victim. . . .  Section 16A,  in contrast,
                      requires  closure even if the victim does
                      not seek the  exclusion of the  press and
                      general  public,  and  would  not  suffer
                      injury  by  their presence.  .  .  .   In
                      short,     16A  cannot  be  viewed  as  a
                      narrowly tailored  means of accommodating
                      the  State's  asserted  interest:    That
                      interest could be served  just as well by
                      requiring the trial court to determine on
                      a case-by-case basis whether  the State's
                      legitimate concern for the  well-being of
                      the  minor  victim necessitates  closure.
                      Such   an   approach  ensures   that  the
                      constitutional right of the press and the
                      public to gain access to  criminal trials
                      will  not  be  restricted   except  where
                      necessary   to    protect   the   State's
                      interest.

          Id.  Significantly, the Court added:
          __

                                         -9-

                      We emphasize that our holding is a narrow
                      one:   that a rule  of mandatory  closure
                      respecting  the  testimony  of minor  sex
                      victims is constitutionally  infirm.   In
                                                             __
                      individual  cases, and  under appropriate
                      _________________________________________
                      circumstances,  the First  Amendment does
                      _________________________________________
                      not necessarily  stand  as a  bar to  the
                      _________________________________________
                      exclusion from the courtroom of the press
                      _________________________________________
                      and general public  during the  testimony
                      _________________________________________
                      of  minor sex-offense  victims.    But  a
                      _________________________________________
                      mandatory     rule,      requiring     no
                      _________________________________________
                      particularized      determinations     in
                      _________________________________________
                      individual cases, is unconstitutional.
                      _____________________________________

          Id. at 611 n.27 (emphasis added).
          __

                    In the instant  case, the Globe argues  that the public

          does  have  a  First  Amendment  right  of  access  to   juvenile

          proceedings.   Relying on the Court's language in Globe, 457 U.S.
                                                            _____

          at  607-08, 611,  the  Globe contends  that the  district court's

          construction  of  the  Act   as  imposing  "a  mandatory  closure

          requirement  on  all  juvenile   proceedings"  renders  the   Act

          unconstitutional.   Assuming  arguendo that  the First  Amendment
                                        ________

          right  of public  access does  apply to  some degree  to juvenile

          proceedings,4  we agree that while the Globe case is not directly
                                                 _____

          applicable  here, the  Court's  reasoning in  that case  strongly

          suggests that  the district court's preferred reading  of the Act

          raises some serious First Amendment concerns.

                    There  may,  however,  be   no  need  to  resolve  this

          potential conflict between the  Act and the First Amendment.   It

                              
          ____________________

          4  This is, however, a highly dubious assumption, particularly in
          light  of the  long,  entrenched, and  well-founded tradition  of
          confidentiality   regarding   juvenile   proceedings,   and   the
          compelling rehabilitative  purposes behind  this tradition.   See
                                                                        ___
          supra note 2; see also In re Sealed Case (Juvenile Transfer), 893
          _____         ________ _____________________________________
          F.2d 363, 367 (D.C. Cir. 1990); discussion infra section IV.  
                                                     _____

                                         -10-

          is a well-established rule  of statutory construction that "where

          an  otherwise acceptable  construction of  a statute  would raise

          serious  constitutional  problems,   [reviewing  courts   should]

          construe  the   statute  to  avoid  such   problems  unless  such

          construction  is plainly  contrary  to the  intent of  Congress."

          DeBartolo Corp.  v. Florida Gulf  Coast Trades Council,  485 U.S.
          _______________     __________________________________

          568, 575 (1988).  We therefore must examine the Act's purpose and

          language to determine whether  it is necessary to call  the Act's

          constitutionality into  question by  construing it to  mandate an

          across-the-board bar to public access.

                                         IV.
                                         IV.

                    As we have explained, the primary purpose of the Act is

          to facilitate the  rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents.  In re
                                                                      _____

          Sealed  Case, 893 F.2d  at 367.  Protection  of the juvenile from
          ____________

          the stigma of a criminal record by preserving the confidentiality

          of proceedings is  an essential  element of  the Act's  statutory

          scheme.  See discussion supra at 5.
                   ___            _____

                    The  government argues  that  the Act's  rehabilitative

          purpose can only be  effectuated by prohibiting public disclosure

          of information about juvenile  proceedings, and contends that the

          Act's  language  explicitly  so  directs.   The  Globe  contends,

          conversely, that the Act's language does not mandate closure, but

          leaves  the decision to  the district  court's discretion,  to be

          determined  on a case-by-case basis.  In so contending, the Globe

          relies  heavily on   PG Publishing,  28 F.3d  at 1359-60,  and we
                               _____________

                                         -11-

          agree  that the Third Circuit's  reasoning in that  case is quite

          persuasive.

                    As the  district court  acknowledged, the Act  does not

          expressly  require a  closed hearing  for a  juvenile proceeding.

          862  F. Supp.  at 655.   Section  5032 of  the Act  provides that

          juvenile  proceedings may  be  convened "at  any  time and  place

          within  the  district, in  chambers or  otherwise."   This phrase

          certainly seems  to contemplate  that district court  judges will

          exercise their discretion  to determine when, where,  and in what

          manner  juvenile proceedings  will  be conducted.   Moreover,  we

          agree  with the Third Circuit  that the language  "in chambers or

          otherwise" strongly implies that the district court's  discretion

          includes  "a decision  regarding the  availability and  degree of

          public access."  PG Publishing, 28 F.3d at 1359.  This section of
                           _____________

          the Act  therefore provides  "strong evidence" that  Congress did

          not  intend mandatory  closure of  all juvenile  proceedings, but

          rather left the question of public access to the district court's

          discretion.  Id.
                       __

                    The first paragraph of   5038(a) of the Act states that

          "the records  [of any  juvenile proceeding] shall  be safeguarded

          from  disclosure  to unauthorized  persons."    Pointing to  this

          provision,  the  government  contends  that  the  Act  explicitly

          prohibits disclosure  of juvenile records except  to the entities

          enumerated  in  subsequent paragraphs,  and  that  this evidences

          Congressional  intent  to  create  an  across-the-board   ban  on

          disclosure  to any  and  all other  parties.   We  do  not think,

                                         -12-

          however, that  this language is quite so  conclusive; the section

          does not explicitly  mandate denial of public  access to juvenile
                               _______

          records,  but   provides  only  that   the  records  are   to  be

          "safeguarded  from disclosure to  unauthorized persons."   Giving
                                            ____________

          this  phrase a less strained, more common sense reading, we think

          that the section prohibits  disclosure only to those persons  not

          authorized  by the  district court  to receive  such information.
                      ______________________

          See   PG  Publishing,  28   F.3d  at  1359   (reaching  the  same
          ___   ______________

          conclusion).   The only express prohibitive  mandate contained in

          all  of   5038(a) rests  in the final  paragraph, which prohibits

          the district  court  from authorizing  disclosure  in  situations

          "when the  request for information  is related to  an application

          for  employment,   license,  bonding   or  any  civil   right  or

          privilege."

                    Nor  do  we  think   that  the  parties  enumerated  in

          paragraphs  (a)(1)  through  (a)(6)  of     5038  constitute  the

          exclusive  list of persons  intended by Congress  to ever receive

          information  about juvenile proceedings.   Rather, the paragraphs

          merely list those  persons who  have a right  to obtain  juvenile

          records  upon  request.   Indeed,  if this  were  meant to  be an

          exclusive  list,   then  the  final  paragraph   of  the  section

          (prohibiting  disclosure  when  the   information  is  sought  in

          relation  to a job application,  etc.) would be  superfluous.  PG
                                                                         __

          Publishing, 28  F.3d at 1360.   Read as  a whole, then,  we think
          __________

          that    5038(a) further  evidences Congressional intent  to leave

                                         -13-

          disclosure  of  juvenile  records  within  the  district  court's

          discretion.5

                    The only section of the Act that suggests that Congress

          intended  an across-the-board bar to  public access is   5038(e),

          which provides that "neither the name nor picture of any juvenile

          shall be  made public in  connection with a  juvenile delinquency

          proceeding."   The  district court  reasoned that  if it  were to

          permit  public access  to the  proceedings, the  juveniles' names

          would  certainly,   unavoidably,  be   made  public,   in  direct

          contravention of   5038(e).  862 F. Supp. at 655.  Because it saw

          no  way to  obey the  letter of    5038(e)  short of  closing the

          proceedings, the  district court  interpreted the Act  to mandate

          closure.   Id. at 655-56.  The  government now urges us to affirm
                     __

          this interpretation, arguing that  any other reading would render

          the confidentiality provisions a nullity.

                    On this point, however, we are  persuaded once again by

          the reasoning of the PG Publishing court, which explained:
                               _____________

                      A prohibition against making a juvenile's
                      name or picture available to  the public,
                      however,  strikes us  as an  indirect and
                      unlikely  way  for Congress  to stipulate
                      that all hearings  under the Act  will be
                      closed  to  the public.    State statutes
                      that   restrict    access   to   juvenile
                      proceedings generally do so  directly and
                              
          ____________________

          5    The  language  of     5038(c)  does  not  conflict  with our
          interpretation.   This section provides that  all information and
          records  relating  to  the  proceeding "shall  not  be  disclosed
          directly or  indirectly to anyone  other than the  judge, counsel
          for the juvenile  and the  Government, or  others entitled  under
                                                 __________________________
          this section to receive juvenile records."  (Emphasis added).  We
          ________________________________________
          read the underlined  phrase to mean any other  persons authorized
          by the court to receive information under   5038(a).

                                         -14-

                      clearly. . . .   We  think  it  far  more
                      likely that   5038(e) was intended not to
                      limit  the discretion of  trial judges to
                      regulate  access to  juvenile delinquency
                      proceedings,   but   to   foreclose   law
                      enforcement officials  from holding press
                      conferences at which the name and picture
                      of the juvenile would  be "made public in
                      connection  with  a juvenile  delinquency
                      proceeding."

          28 F.3d at 1360-61 (quoting 18 U.S.C.   5038(e)).  Certainly,  if

          Congress intended to mandate closure of all juvenile proceedings,

          it  could have done  so expressly  and directly.   Cf.,  e.g., 18
                                                             ___   ____

          U.S.C.    3509(e) (authorizing "the exclusion  from the courtroom

          of all persons, including members of the press, who do not have a

          direct  interest  in  the case"  during  the  testimony of  child

          witnesses).

                    We  also  agree  with  the   Globe  that  even  if  the

          prohibition  on  disclosure  of  a juvenile's  name  and  picture

          prevents  unfettered public  access to  proceedings, it  does not

          necessarily follow  that   5038(e)  commands total closure.   The

          statutory directive can  in many instances be satisfied by other,

          less restrictive means.  For example, public access to records or

          proceedings  poses  no  risk  of  disclosure  of  the  juvenile's

          picture,  as cameras can be banned from the proceedings and names

          redacted from documents.   Similarly, there are methods  short of

          complete closure, such as the use of initials or pseudonyms, that

          would  protect against  inadvertent disclosure of  the juveniles'

          names.

                    Finally, we  think that interpreting the  entire Act in

          light  of    5038(e), rather  than vice  versa,  attributes undue

                                         -15-

          significance to that section.  To hold that the Act must  mandate

          closure  because of    5038(e)  is effectively  to ignore  strong

          indicia  elsewhere in the statute that Congress did not intend to

          create a blanket prohibition on public access, but rather to vest

          discretion with the district courts  to fashion proceedings in  a

          manner most appropriate for each individual case.

                    For  these  reasons,  we hold  that  the  Act does  not

          mandate  across-the-board closure  for all  juvenile proceedings,

          but merely authorizes closure, or  any other measures designed to

          ensure confidentiality, to be  determined on a case-by-case basis

          at the discretion  of the district  court.6   We think that  this

          interpretation fully  comports with  the purpose and  language of

          the  statute as  a whole,  and is  far preferable  to  a strained

          construction of the Act that  mandates complete closure and  thus

          triggers First Amendment concerns.

                                          V.
                                          V.

                    We turn now to the Globe's final contentions on appeal,

          namely, that the district court's articulated reasons for closing

          the  proceedings are  not  "sufficiently compelling"  to  justify

          closure in this case, that the court's order does not effectively

          serve its intended interests, and that the order is not "narrowly

          tailored."  The Globe offers several theories in support of these

          contentions, none of which we find persuasive.

                              
          ____________________

          6  We  emphasize that we are not holding  or even suggesting that
          juvenile proceedings ought  to be  open.  We  are merely  holding
          that the Act does not invariably require them to be closed.

                                         -16-

                    As  an  initial  matter,   we  note  that  the  Globe's

          arguments  on  this point  seem to  rest  on the  assumption that

          juvenile  proceedings  should  be  open  as  a  rule,   and  only

          compelling interests  justify  closure.   Certainly,  a  district

          court must  exercise its discretion soundly,  and must articulate

          reasons which are supported by the record and in keeping with the

          policies of the Act.  Contrary to the Globe's implied assumption,

          however,  the language  and policy  of the  Act, as  well as  the

          history of juvenile justice proceedings  in this country over the

          past century, indicate that a court's exercise of its  discretion

          to close juvenile proceedings is not an exception to some general

          rule of openness, but the norm.

                    The  district court's  findings here  were meticulously

          specific.  The court first correctly noted  the Act's overarching

          objective  of  protecting  juveniles  from  stigma  in  order  to

          facilitate rehabilitation.  862 F. Supp. at 657.  The court found

          that    these   juveniles    were   particularly    amenable   to

          rehabilitation, based  on the  prosecutor's decision not  to seek

          transfer to  adult status and the  clean prior records of  two of

          the juveniles.  Id.   The district court also gave weight  to the
                          __

          juveniles' opposition to open  proceedings, noting that the media

          had already  subjected the youths to  overwhelming publicity, and

          concluding that adequate protection  of the juveniles from stigma

          and public  scrutiny would  be impossible unless  the proceedings

          were closed.  Id.
                        __

                                         -17-

                    The  Globe  contends that  the  court  should not  have

          relied upon  the opposition of  the juveniles themselves  to open

          proceedings,  as such  a  wish is  "unremarkable"  and "does  not

          suggest that  this case  involves any individualized  concern for

          closure different from those  present in virtually every juvenile

          proceeding."   As the government points  out, however, protection

          of  the  accused  is  one  of the  strongest  justifications  for

          allowing public  access  to the  proceeding.   When  the  accused

          juvenile,  on  advice of  counsel,  opposes  public access,  this

          justification  is  vitiated.     Further,   the  juveniles'   own

          assessment of their  interests is a highly  reliable indicator of

          whether they will be irreparably stigmatized by open proceedings.

          Given the Act's  strong policy in  favor of protecting  juveniles

          from such  stigma,  we think  the juveniles'  opposition to  open

          proceedings  was a  relevant  factor for  the  district court  to

          consider.

                    The Globe also attempts to downplay the significance of

          the  fact that the juveniles  had not been  transferred for adult

          prosecution.  The prosecutors'  determination not to transfer the

          juveniles is based on an evaluation of criteria set forth  by the

          Act, including the age and social background of the juvenile, the

          nature of the alleged offense, the extent of the juvenile's prior

          record, and  the juvenile's present intellectual  development and

          psychological maturity.  18  U.S.C.   5032.  Because all of these

          criteria are highly significant  indicators of the amenability of

          the  juvenile to rehabilitation,  they are also  very relevant to

                                         -18-

          the court's decision whether to close the proceedings.  By taking

          the prosecutors' decision into consideration, then, the court was

          also giving weight  to these  factors.  That  these factors  will

          often  militate in favor of  closure in juvenile proceedings does

          not  in  any  way diminish  their  relevance  or  weight; to  the

          contrary, it  merely underscores the Act's  strong preference for

          preserving the confidentiality of juvenile records.7

                    The Globe also contends that the district court's order

          does not effectively serve its  intended interests, as nothing in

          the  court's  opinion  indicates  that  the  closure  order  will

          "effectively  preserve the juveniles'  confidentiality."   In its

          opinion, the district court recognized that media coverage of the

          proceedings had already been extensive, that one of the juveniles

          had already been interviewed, that the juveniles had already been

          identified  several  times in  the press,  and  that many  of the

          details  of  their alleged  conduct  had  already been  disclosed

          through the related  adult criminal prosecution of Clayton.   862

          F. Supp. at 659.   The Globe now points to these facts and argues

          that because all this  information had already been aired  in the

          press,  "whatever stigma  the juveniles  may acquire  will attach

          even  if the press is excluded from the proceedings."  Therefore,

                              
          ____________________

          7    The  Globe also  suggests  that the  heinous  nature  of the
          juveniles'  alleged  conduct  augments  the  public  interest  in
          "seeing  justice  done,"  and  therefore   supports  opening  the
          proceedings.    Given  the  Act's policy  of  preventing  stigma,
          however, this argument is completely misguided.   It is precisely
          because  the alleged crimes have provoked  so much public outrage
          _______
          and  antipathy that closure becomes more appropriate, in order to
          best effectuate the Act's purpose.

                                         -19-

          according  to the  Globe,  because the  district court's  closure

          order cannot  possibly preserve  the juveniles' anonymity,  it is

          ineffective, and cannot stand.

                    This is  a  flawed, circular  argument with  disturbing

          ramifications.   Essentially, the  Globe is arguing  that because

          the press  has already  obtained and published  some information,
                                                          ____

          any  further   attempts  by   the  district  court   to  preserve

          confidentiality are either futile or irrelevant.  Contrary to the

          Globe's  contention, the  fact  that the  juveniles have  already

          suffered  stigma does  not justify removing  or denying  them all

          further  protections created by the Act.  Moreover, we agree with

          the  government that  to  allow the  media to  "leverage" partial

          information  into  an unfettered  right  of  access to  otherwise

          nonpublic proceedings  would grant the media  a dangerous control

          over important  state interests.  We therefore reject the Globe's

          contentions on this  point, and  hold that  the district  court's

          closure  order  sufficiently   serves  its   stated  purpose   of

          preserving what confidentiality remains of the proceedings.

                    The Globe also argues that the district court's closure

          order is  not "narrowly  tailored."   Because the  district court

          could have effected its intended purpose through less restrictive

          means,  such  as  using   pseudonyms  and  redacting  identifying

          information from  proceedings and records, the  Globe argues, its

          total ban on public  access was unwarranted.  Again, we note that

          the  Globe  is relying  on the  dubious assumption  that district

          courts  must   meet  the  extremely   stringent  First  Amendment

                                         -20-

          standards  applied to  adult criminal cases  in order  to justify

          closure of juvenile proceedings.

                    Even  assuming,   however,  that  such   standards  are

          applicable  here, we find that  they are sufficiently  met by the

          court's  order.  As the  district court recognized,  it could not

          bar the  media from publishing information legally obtained.  862

          F. Supp. at 657 (citing  Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing  Co., 443
                                   _____    __________________________

          U.S. 97  (1979)).  Because it had no way of ensuring that certain

          identifying   information  would   remain  confidential   if  the

          proceedings were open to  the press, the court concluded  that it

          had no  less restrictive alternative to  closing the proceedings.

          Id.  We  think this reasoning is quite sound.   The identities of
          __

          the  juveniles had already been  widely publicized.  Redaction of

          the juveniles' names from the  proceedings as the Globe  suggests

          would   therefore   have   been    an   exercise   in   futility.

          Realistically, the  press would merely publish  detailed accounts

          of  the  "redacted"  proceedings,  substituting  the  identifying

          information  previously obtained.   In  short, redaction,  or any

          other  compromise   measure,  would  have   been  ineffective  in

          preserving the confidentiality of the proceedings.8
                              
          ____________________

          8  We  likewise reject  the Globe's arguments  that the  district
          court's order impermissibly infringes  the public right of access
          to  court records by shifting the burden of obtaining access onto
          the  public.   Rather than  sealing the  case file  and requiring
          interested  parties to  move for  further disclosures,  the Globe
          suggests,  the  court  should have  done  just  the  opposite and
          required  trial counsel  to  move for  impoundment of  particular
          documents.  This contention is yet another example of the Globe's
          attempt to  force juvenile  proceedings into the  First Amendment
          framework  developed for  adult  criminal proceedings.    Section
          5038(a)  of  the  Act  specifically provides  that  throughout  a

                                         -21-

                    Finally, the  Globe contends that the  district court's

          order  violates  the  public's  common law  right  of  access  to

          proceedings and records.  It is true that "courts of this country

          recognize a general right  to inspect . . .  judicial records and

          documents."  Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,  435 U.S. 589,
                       _____    ___________________________

          597  (1978).  The Supreme Court has explained, however, that this

          right is  not absolute; rather, the decision as to such access is

          "best  left to  the  sound  discretion  of  the  trial  court,  a

          discretion to be  exercised in  light of the  relevant facts  and

          circumstances  of the particular case."  Id. at 598-99.  Assuming
                                                   __

          that  this common law right  of access applies  to juvenile court

          records,9  we do not think  that the district  court's order here

          improperly  infringes  on this  right.    In  this  context,  the

          qualified common  law  right of  access to  proceedings has  been

          supplanted by the statutory  scheme of the Act.   As we interpret

          them,  however,  the  Act's  confidentiality  provisions  do  not

          significantly alter or restrict that common law right in any way,

          but  leave public access to the sound discretion of trial courts.

          Because  the  district  court's  order fully  comports  with  the

                              
          ____________________

          juvenile   delinquency   proceeding,   "the  records   shall   be
          safeguarded from disclosure to unauthorized persons."  As we have
          explained, this section grants  the district court the discretion
          to  release  juvenile  records  as it  deems  appropriate.    The
          district court's order here  meticulously tracks this language of
          the Act, and  we therefore  find that its  method of  determining
          public access to court records is entirely proper.

          9   It  is not  altogether clear  that this  common law  right of
          access applies to juvenile  court records, in light of  the long,
          sound  tradition of  preserving  the confidentiality  of juvenile
          proceedings.  See supra note 4.
                        ___ _____

                                         -22-

          provisions of  the  Act and  is  thus a  proper  exercise of  its

          discretion,  the order  cannot be  said to  infringe on  any pre-

          existing common law  right of  access.  We  therefore reject  the

          Globe's arguments on this point.

                                         VI.
                                         VI.

                    In sum, we hold  that the Act authorizes, but  does not

          mandate,  the  closure of  juvenile  proceedings.   The  district

          court's closure order was  fully justified on the record  and was

          therefore an entirely proper exercise of its discretion under the

          Act.

                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                         -23-