October 23, 2011
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982)
Posted by Darcy Rumbaugh under Case Briefs[2] Comments
1. Facts of the Case
In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court a judge ordered the exclusion of the press and the public during the trial of a defendant accused of the rape of three minors. There was a Massachusetts statute that provided a precedence of exclusion for cases involving minors and sex crimes. The trial ended with the defendant being acquitted, and records were then open to the press and public, but The Globe Newspaper challenged the exclusion to the state supreme court.
2. Legal Issue
The Superior Court was looking at whether the statute of exclusion of the press and public during trials involving minors and certain sex crimes violated the First Amendment.
3. Decision
The Court ruled that the state statute of exclusion was unconstitutional and that it violated the first amendment.
4. Analysis
The court explained that while criminal
court cases are generally open to the public and the press, there are
exclusions to this. However, they explained these exclusions are only if the
closure of the trial is in the interest of the state. Exclusion of an open
court cannot be an attempt to protect a sex victim from further trauma or
embarrassment, or to encourage other victims to come forward. The court also
pointed out that the press has access to the all court testimony after the
trial has ended, so the exclusion doesn’t prevent the press from having the
access to the information and therefore is unnecessary.
5. Questions?
1 .Do you agree with the courts findings?
2. Do you think the press should be
excluded from trials involving minors and sexual crimes?
How would you defend your stance to the
question above?
3. Do you think minors have the right to a
public trial as adult citizens do, or should there be an exception when
involving minors?
2 thoughts on “Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 27th, 2011 at 8:32 am
I think press exclusion from sexual assault or r-ape cases should be up to the wishes of the victim. (By the way, the posting system won’t let me type r-ape as a whole word. My First Amendment rights are being violated!) I don’t believe the whole case should be closed, as it is important for the public to gain knowledge of the pervasiveness of sexual crimes. However, the victim’s testimony should be a closed part of the proceedings if she (or he) wishes the testimony to be closed. Imagine having to get up in front of the press and detail exactly what happened to you during a sexual assault in intimate detail. That prospect is enough to produce a major chilling effect on victims and stop anyone from reporting a r-ape or sexual assault to authorities. In the interest of justice and the traumatized victim, closure should be an option.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I do agree with the court on the topic of the exclusion being unnecessary.If the press is able to see all of the documents of the case then there would be no real reason to stop them from being in the courtroom in the first place because the same information will evenutally get out. I do think that the testimony of the victim should be closed if he or she wishes due the very intimate and damaging nature or what is being said. Other than that,the case in my opinion should be open. I do think that minors have the same right to a public trial as adults do.I think that it should be up to the minor and their family if they would like the trial to be public or not, but their should be the option of a public trial given.