Keep the Light On in Our Courts

Judges in Los Angeles have used a lot of high-minded language about protecting the rights of the accused and securing a fair trial to cloak their imposition of secrecy in trial proceedings. Yet those seals on court records and gags on reporters in criminal and civil cases seem more often designed merely to make life easier for the judges and the celebrity figures and corporate litigants who come before them. Consider this:

* Judges handling the Ennis Cosby murder case have sealed court records that are usually open, gagged lawyers and blocked release of grand jury transcripts, which by state law are open to the public after an indictment.

* An appeals court barred disclosure of grand jury testimony that could reveal specifically how officials lost more than $1.6 billion in the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy.

* In the recent trial of a man convicted of stalking movie director Steven Spielberg, judges not only sealed the records and transcripts, one judge ordered reporters not to write about an exchange between two lawyers.

These actions come atop a troubling trend--civil trial judges approving sealed, secret agreements in damage cases that involve product defects or health hazards. The secrecy perpetuates consumers’ ignorance of dangers to which they are exposed.

Certainly there are a few cases in which the privacy needs of the people involved take precedence over the public’s right to know. Crimes by juveniles, child custody matters and traumatic sexual crimes are on that list. Long-established traditions and court rules already protect parties in these matters.

These exceptions aside, our justice system is predicated on open proceedings. Judges who justify secrecy on flimsier grounds are taking unwarranted liberties with the Constitution’s guarantees and a long record of case law.

Since O.J. Simpson’s criminal trial, judges have unfortunately come to fear that if they allow reporters to do their jobs jurors won’t consider the evidence soberly, the public will second-guess the bench or a celebrity’s privacy will be invaded. It’s one thing to safeguard a celebrity’s address and phone number but something else entirely to preemptively gag reporters, close courtrooms and seal records, as many courts have done in cases involving the famous. These sweeping actions are usually reversed on appeal, but the public’s right to know about the business of its courts has been eroded. And in many cases, problems at high-profile trials are due to a judge’s poor control of the proceedings, not to media coverage.

In the area of civil law, the Legislature passed a measure in 1992 limiting the ability of trial judges to seal records that keep from the public evidence of product defects, environmental hazards or financial fraud. Four other states have similar laws protecting the public’s access to court records, but Gov. Pete Wilson unwisely vetoed this measure. Also, an effort to get state courts to adopt such a rule by resolution died. The proposal deserves to be revived.

Wednesday’s appeals court ruling that journalists can voice criticism of judges sends a welcome signal that the 1st Amendment doesn’t stop at the courthouse door. And on Thursday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge unsealed hundreds of documents concerning the death of a boy in foster care, permitting a necessary review of the actions of public officials who supervised his care.

Respect for the rule of law leans heavily on the public’s ability to see what happens in its courtrooms and government agencies. Judges who restrict the public’s view risk far more than the wrath of a bunch of curious reporters.