NCJ Number
93415
Journal
George Washington Law Review Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1982) Pages: 465-484
Date Published
1982
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This note examines the common law right of access to judicial records as it applies to the copying and broadcasting of audio and videotape recordings, specifically the circumstances under which the right must yield to a defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury.
Abstract
The study analyzes several recent court of appeals decisions that considered applications by television networks to copy and broadcast audio and videotapes admitted into evidence at various trials. The cases considered are United States v. Mitchell, Nixon v. Warner Communications, United States v. Myers, United States v. Jenrette, and United States v. Edwards. The note advises that notwithstanding the strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records, courts must deny access if it will frustrate a constitutional right. The Supreme Court in 'Nixon' reiterated the common law basis of this right. The Constitution requires access only to the content of evidence presented in court, not to the documents or tapes themselves. Thus, if access will amount to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy or effectively condone an unlawful search and seizure, courts must refuse to release the judicial records. In such a case, there is no need to balance the benefits and burdens of access, because the constitutional right at issue is supreme over the common law right of access. The cases reviewed illustrate the relevant considerations in determining whether access is warranted despite the threat to a subsequent trial. Access is most desirable when the requested evidence depicts acts of public officials, contains matters of public concern, or is necessary for an accurate understanding of the proceedings. Conversely, access places a greater burden on a subsequent trial when the desired evidence might not be presented at the later proceeding, is inconsistent with the defense's case, or has not already been widely publicized. Because of the safeguards provided by voir dire and appellate review of convictions, however, access should be the rule rather than the exception. A total of 149 footnotes are provided.