Letting the Sunshine In   

Rulings allow coverage of adults tried in juvenile courts.

Criminal courts are presumed to be open to the press and the public. The Supreme Court has said that under the First and Sixth Amendments, criminal trials may be closed only under extraordinary circumstances.

Juvenile proceedings are another matter. Ever since 1899, when Illinois established the first juvenile court in the United States, conventional wisdom had it that the underlying purpose of these tribunals was different from that of adult courts. The object was to rehabilitate, not punish. That goal would best be served, it was believed, by holding juvenile hearings in secret. With only limited exceptions, the media and the public were excluded.

But policies that might have made sense at a time when most children facing delinquency hearings had merely soaped a few windows seemed inconsistent with teen offenders of the '90s, whose exploits included gangland-style murders. Many states revised their laws to open proceedings when the alleged perpetrators are charged with violent crimes.

Yet juvenile courts remain the most impenetrable branch of the justice system. The lingering presumption of secrecy results in some bizarre rulings--none more so than when adults face charges in juvenile court. Often, judges apply the secrecy rules as rigidly in these cases as they would if the accused was a child.

For example, in 1997, a juvenile court judge in Stoughton, Massachusetts, barred the press from a pretrial hearing involving Robert and Andrea Berkowitz, an adult couple accused of contributing to the delinquency of a minor by serving alcohol to underage children. Originally docketed in District Court, their case was transferred under a state law granting juvenile courts jurisdiction over such matters. The couple's lawyer argued that juveniles who would be expected to testify should be protected from "the prying eyes of the public."

Quincy's Patriot Ledger persuaded the judge to allow its reporters to attend the proceedings. The judge granted the request on condition that the paper refrain from publishing the name, address or photograph of any minors involved in the case. The newspaper appealed these restrictions to the commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled in 1998 that the judge's order was an unlawful prior restraint.

Having opened the proceedings, the judge could not prohibit the press from publishing the information without first demonstrating that her order would serve some compelling interest, the high court said. It added that, had the case been conducted in District Court, the proceedings would have been open to the press and public as a matter of course.

A similar argument was made successfully in March in the case of 39-year-old Michael Skakel, the nephew of the late Robert F. Kennedy. Skakel was arraigned as a juvenile in Stamford, Connecticut, on charges that he murdered a 15-year-old girl in 1975. Connecticut law gives judges the authority to exclude "any person whose presence is..not necessary" from juvenile hearings. A coalition of media organizations petitioned the court, seeking the right to attend the proceedings. Unlike the Berkowitzes, Skakel did not oppose the media's motion.

Judge Maureen Dennis found that, although as a general rule publicity about juvenile proceedings would undermine the "rehabilitative purpose" of the secrecy provisions, in this case, "the tender years of the respondent's minority..have long since passed."

This common-sense approach would have led to a favorable disposition even if Dennis had stopped there. But it got even better when she considered whether the media could be excluded on the grounds that they weren't "necessary."

Dennis noted that not only is Skakel an adult, but his identity, age, nature of the crime and other details are already widely known and the focus of intense public scrutiny. The courtroom cannot hold all of the members of the public who might like to attend the proceedings. Under these circumstances, she wrote, the presence of the press, although not indispensable to the hearings, is "more than a mere convenience. The [media], in this situation, appear to be necessary parties or persons so that they may assist in the goal of informing the public."

The Associated Press reported that Dennis' ruling may be the first in Connecticut to open juvenile proceedings to the public. It's about time. As the Minnesota Supreme Court observed in 1978, "if juvenile courts are to function efficiently, their philosophy and practice need to be known." Especially if the people appearing before them are adults.