Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of Norfolk

1982-06-23

Headline: Court strikes down Massachusetts law requiring automatic courtroom closure during minors’ sexual-assault testimony, restoring press and public access and requiring case-by-case judicial findings before any exclusion.

Holding: The Court held that Massachusetts’ statute forcing the press and public out during testimony of minor sex victims violates the First Amendment and requires individualized judicial findings before any courtroom closure.

Real World Impact:

Invalidates mandatory courtroom closures during minor sex-victim testimony.
Requires judges to make case-by-case findings before excluding press and public.
Restores presumptive public and press access to criminal trials.

Topics: press access to trials, victim privacy, criminal trials, First Amendment

Summary

Background

A Boston-area newspaper tried to attend a rape trial in Norfolk County where the accused was charged with raping three teenage girls (two 16-year-olds and one 17-year-old). The trial judge closed the courtroom during the victims’ testimony under a Massachusetts law, §16A, which the state supreme court read to require automatic exclusion of the press and public during testimony by minors. The newspaper appealed through the state courts, and after this Court’s earlier decision recognizing a public right of access to trials, the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

Reasoning

The Court began from the First Amendment right of public and press access to criminal trials. It accepted that protecting minor victims from trauma is a compelling government interest. But the Court held that an automatic rule forcing closure in all cases is not narrowly tailored. Judges must make individualized, case-by-case determinations weighing factors like the child’s age and maturity, the nature of the crime, the victim’s wishes, and family interests. The Court noted that transcripts and public records can still reveal testimony and identity, undercutting the state’s secrecy argument, and concluded the Massachusetts mandatory rule violated the First Amendment.

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates laws that force blanket courtroom closures during minor victims’ testimony. Going forward, trial judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere must hold hearings and make specific findings before excluding the press or public. The decision is narrow: courts may still close proceedings in particular cases if the judge makes the required, individualized findings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor agreed the statute could not be automatic. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stevens dissented, arguing history, state authority to protect children, and procedural concerns counseled a different result.