The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune newspaper’s argument that the First Amendment guaranteed it the right to attend a “show cause” hearing, at which a clerk-magistrate decides whether there is sufficient evidence (i.e., “probable cause”) to charge a person with a crime. According to the SJC, “show cause” hearings occur only when the person who may be charged has not already been placed under arrest.
The Court notes a potential drawback of its ruling:
The transparency that open proceedings afford may be especially important if a well-publicized show cause hearing results in a decision not to bring criminal charges, thereby ending the matter. In such cases, the public may question whether justice has been done behind the closed doors of the hearing room.
Of course, that wouldn’t ever happen. Right? Right??
Anyone can be accused of a crime and required to attend a show cause hearing. Anyone, in the words of Fear Factor, at anytime for any reason. So the balance here is private rights of individuals who are wrongly or falsely accused vs. the public’s right to an accountable and fair judicial process. While the academics among us grasp the notion of “innocent until proven guilty,” the reality is that most people (unless/until instructed otherwise on a jury) equate criminal charges with guilt. Or at least “fire where there is smoke” reasoning. I’m fine with show cause hearings being private, because failure by a clerk to issue a complaint can be reheard by a Judge. So there’s a second set of eyes looking at these decisions, at least theoretically. It’s a lot harder for monkey business to happen when more eyes are on the monkey. And completely innocent persons’ reputations aren’t unduly sullied by baseless accusations in the meantime. I’m with the SJC on this one. My two cents.
It looks like the Bush folks aren’t the only ones that wish to hide the processes of the justice system. Certainly, much can be gained by screening the process of what goes on at those hearings.
<
p>
Remember that these medieval fiefdoms of the courts are family controlled. Much power can be exerted by the families and friends of the families. Whose to see? Ah, the joys of blackmail, extortion. Now, if they can just get rid of Habeas Corpus altogether!
<
p>
Where is Robert Bolt when you need him?
…afraid to say anything…
The press is impotent anyway. They can’t write a story unless they get it from the Public Affairs Officer. If the press can’t get a story out of what happens with the courts everyday, they aren’t going to get one by getting into a probable cause hearing.
<
p>
The last two good ivestigative reports I saw were about the Dedham DA’s office and the US Bankruptcy courts. Both done in the early 1970″s. (Both by the Globe, remember when it was a newspaper/) Wow!, the newspapers have been dead a long time.
They don’t have to let anyone in.
…Wasn’t there a group of mostly students and retired persons that used to view the trials nobody else would watch. They served as a safety for a defendant’s civil rights. Does anyone remember this?
…The 1st amendment gives the press the right to print information that it discovers (with some limitations during time of war–see US vs. Frohwerk), but it doesn’t give the press the right to obtain the information. That was clear from the Pentagon Papers case. In the Pentagon Papers case, the NYTimes was provided with the information that it printed, but it probably would not have had the right to obtain the information from the Pentagon (this was pre-FOIA).
<
p>
What the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune wanted was an unusual right to obtain the information. And the SJC told them–and us–that they didn’t have that right and probably neither did anyone else.
<
p>
Whether or not they and others should have that right is a separate issue. But apparently nobody has that right now, and the SJC was not going to create a special one for the press on 1st amendment grounds. If people want the right to attend show-cause hearings, they will have to get the law changed so that they are public. Then people from the press will have the right to attend the hearings, just like anyone else.