Judge’s Closed-Door Policy on Trial Amounts to a Gag Order on Justice

If you happen to venture down to the courtroom of Judge Frederick A. Jones in the near future, there is a chance you might not get in. The judge, you see, has taken to locking the doors whenever he thinks there is something about the Sherri Dally murder case that you shouldn’t know.

Let’s presume that your interest isn’t just idle curiosity, but that you are one of those people who actually believes the courtroom Jones occupies is really your courtroom, not his. And that you think you have a right to watch the justice system in action so you can draw your own conclusions about whether it works or not.

That premise, of course, is one of the reasons we have evolved our current justice system. The founding fathers and most Supreme Court justices over the years have taken the view that it’s better to have the public watching than not watching--not just when it comes down to trial, but at important steps along the way.

Judge Jones declared recently that he shares a “deep and abiding regard for the rights of the press and the public,” but his actions belie those words.

At the moment, he has imposed a sweeping gag order barring lawyers in the Dally case from commenting on even the most routine matters that could help the public understand legal issues and strategies. And even though jury selection has been moved to Santa Barbara, where potential jurors are unlikely to see local press accounts, Jones has refused to modify it.

Along with occasionally locking the public out of his courtroom, Jones also has allowed lawyers to routinely file their motions under seal, blocking the public from knowing even the broad details of what is being argued, let alone the specifics.

All this is done under the general heading of protecting the rights of the defendants, certainly an important consideration. But all too often, that is only the public excuse for a judicial capriciousness masking the unspoken view that juries can’t really be trusted and the public doesn’t really have a right to know much of anything.

What is most alarming is that Jones is not alone. Although the vast majority of Ventura County judges go out of their way to balance fair trial and public-access interests in high-profile cases, a handful have been just as quick to issue overly broad gag orders and even lock the courtroom doors at times on big cases.

Why should anybody care?

Oh, let’s see. We could start with the Spanish Inquisition, when judges took judicial secrecy to record heights. Then there was England’s Star Chamber, another secret court arrangement that allowed the government to rob anybody it felt like robbing. More locally, there was the old alcalde system of secret civil and criminal proceedings in California that preceded statehood.

All these and assorted other judicial atrocities over the years simply help establish one of history’s clearest lessons: Secrecy, even when practiced in the name of an important value, leads time after time to corruption and public distrust of whatever institution practices it.

Judge Jones needs to recognize that as the Dally case proceeds. Just as a jury ultimately will have the task of deciding guilt or innocence, the public has the duty of reviewing once again the broader questions that are crucial to a free society: Did the prosecutors and defense lawyers do their jobs honestly and well? Was the judge fair and even-handed? Did the justice system work or did it fail?

To answer those questions, the public needs access through the front door. It is a full partner in this business of American justice, and it shouldn’t be relegated to having to peek over the backyard fence to figure out what is going on. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan said as much in a decision Jones and a few other Ventura County jurists should take to heart:

“Closed trials breed suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns disrespect for the law. Public access is essential, therefore, . . . to achieve the objective of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.”