|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Juvenile Court Must Hold Hearing Before Closing Proceedings, Make Docket Entries Accessible
2006-0945. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 2006-Ohio-4437.
In Prohibition and Mandamus. Writ of prohibition granted. Writ of mandamus granted in part.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4437.pdf
(Aug. 30, 2006) In a multifaceted decision addressing the public's right to access juvenile court proceedings and documents, the Supreme Court of Ohio today granted writs sought by the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper ordering a Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court judge to conduct evidentiary hearings before granting motions to close court proceedings to the public, and requiring the court to give public notice of the filing of motions to close proceedings and of scheduled hearings on such motions by making that information available on a publicly accessible docket.
The Court's per curiam decision also held that juvenile courts must allow public access to written motions seeking to close courtroom proceedings, and to the contents of hearing notices and the court's decisions granting or denying closure motions. The Court specified that in providing copies of these documents to the public, juvenile courts should redact (block out) any confidential information they may contain.
The case involved complaints by the Plain Dealer that Judge Alison Floyd had improperly denied reporters access to juvenile court proceedings in several cases. One set of cases involved members of a street gang called the Goonies who were charged with a string of crimes in the Slavic Village area of Cleveland that culminated in the killing of an elderly woman, Therese Szelugowski, during an attempted purse-snatching. Another case involved two 11-year-old girls charged with aggravated arson and other crimes for starting a fire that caused over $200,000 damage to the St. John Nepomucene Elementary School.
In its complaint, the newspaper asserted that Judge Floyd had improperly granted motions by the defendants in these cases to close portions of the court's proceedings without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendants had proven specific legal criteria for denying public access to juvenile proceedings.
Attorneys for the Plain Dealer also sought relief from the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court's policy of denying public access to its docket and to the contents of closure motions filed with the court, notices of hearings on closure motions, and the court's rulings on those motions. They argued that this policy made it virtually impossible for reporters or members of the public to challenge motions to close juvenile proceedings because it prevented them from learning that a closure motion had been filed in a case, or knowing when they should appear to present evidence opposing such motions.
In today's decision the Court granted a writ of prohibition barring Judge Floyd from approving motions to close proceedings to the public without holding an evidentiary hearing, including cases in which no objection to the closure motion is filed. Pointing to legislation adopted by the General Assembly in 2002 and subsequent amendments to the Supreme Court's Juv. R. 27, the Court noted that Ohio's standard for closing juvenile proceedings has changed from a former general authorization to exclude the public from hearings at the court's discretion to a specific requirement in R.C. 2151.35(A)(1) that “(t)he court may exclude the general public from its hearings in a particular case if the court holds a separate hearing to determine whether that exclusion is appropriate.”
Quoting from a 2001 Supreme Court decision involving a closure dispute between the Plain Dealer and the Geauga County Juvenile Court, the Court wrote that: “‘ … a juvenile court may restrict public access to delinquency proceedings if, after hearing evidence and argument on the issue, the court finds that (1) there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm the child or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access, and (3) there are no reasonable alternatives to closure.' The burden of establishing these factors is on the party seeking closure of the delinquency proceeding.”
Because the party moving for closure of court proceedings bears the burden of proving these criteria, the Court held that Judge Floyd acted improperly in granting a closure motion in one of the Goonies gang member cases without a hearing after the media withdrew formal objections, and in granting a defense motion to close a portion of the proceedings in the school arson case without a hearing after allowing the media 30 minutes to contact their attorneys and notify the court of any objections.
“The closure hearing and evidentiary findings required by precedent, statute, and rule are not removed simply because there is no opposition to a motion for closure.” the Court wrote. “… Therefore we hold that Judge Floyd abused her discretion by conducting closed delinquency proceedings without first holding the required evidentiary closure hearing and making the requisite findings to support closure.”
The Court also granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court to make its docket entries addressing closure motions publicly accessible so that interested persons can monitor and respond to the filing of such motions, and directed the court to provide public access to the contents of closure motions, hearing notices and court rulings granting or denying closure after redacting confidential information from those documents.
In addition to the hearing requirement imposed by R.C 2151.35(A)(1), the Court pointed out that Ohio Juvenile Rule 27(A)(1) grants to the press and public “a right to present evidence at a closure hearing to show a ‘countervailing right be present' at a juvenile court proceeding.” The Court held that the right to be heard at an evidentiary hearing “is rendered meaningless when ─ as here ─ the juvenile court does not allow public access to its docket to provide notice of filed motions for closure, scheduled hearing dates for those motions, and the court's rulings on them.”
Noting that there is currently a wide divergence in the accessibility of juvenile court docket information and filings among Ohio's 88 counties, the Court held that: “The public and press are afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a motion for closure in juvenile court when (1) a written motion for closure is entered on a publicly available docket and the motion itself is available for public inspection, (2) the scheduled hearing on the motion is also entered on a publicly available docket, and (3) any court decision is entered on a publicly available docket and the decision is available for public inspection.”
In one of two additional claims advanced by the Plain Dealer, the Court granted a writ of mandamus requiring the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court to provide the newspaper with a transcript of a May 2,
2006, hearing in one of the gang-related cases from which a reporter was improperly excluded. In the school arson case, the Court declined to order immediate production of a transcript of the arraignment of the defendants, but instead directed Judge Floyd to hold a closure hearing at which the parties and the Plain Dealer will have an opportunity to be heard on the applicability of statutory and case law closure criteria to the facts of that case.
The Court's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer concurred in judgment only.
Contacts
David Marburger, 216.621.0200, for the
Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Charles Hannan, 216.243.7758, for Judge Alison Floyd and the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."