El Vocero De Puerto Rico v. Puerto Rico

Background

A newspaper reporter and his paper asked Puerto Rican judges to let them attend or receive recordings of preliminary criminal hearings. Puerto Rico Rule 23 said those hearings “shall be held privately” unless the defendant asked for openness. After access was denied, the reporter and paper sued, arguing the First Amendment protects press and public access to such hearings, relying on an earlier U.S. decision about similar California hearings.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Puerto Rico must allow public access to preliminary hearings. It found Rule 23 hearings are very much like trials: a neutral magistrate decides if there is probable cause (a reasonable basis to believe a crime occurred), the accused has counsel and can cross-examine witnesses, and the hearing is often the only public view of the criminal process. Because those features match the earlier case, the Court said the privacy rule is unconstitutional. Judges may close a hearing only after specific findings that (1) there is a substantial probability that publicity would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and (2) reasonable alternatives to closure would not protect that right.

Real world impact

Reporters and the public in Puerto Rico will generally have access to preliminary criminal hearings. Courts must make written, case-by-case findings before closing a hearing. The decision also confirms the First Amendment applies fully to Puerto Rico, meaning local rules cannot automatically keep such hearings secret.

Dissents or concurrances

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court had upheld the rule, stressing local traditions and concerns about small community size and reputation. The U.S. Court rejected those reasons as insufficient to override the public’s access rights.