Silence is golden, according to the CO criminal courts. If nothing else, this case should alert the citizens of that state to the egregious limitations to their presumptive rights that are ongoing in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.
"The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “criminal trials and pretrial proceedings should not be closed to media representatives unless an overriding and compelling state interest in closing the proceedings is demonstrated.”
Star Journal Publ’g Corp. v. Cnty. Court, 591 P.2d 1028, 1030 (Colo. 1979). In
Star Journal, the court held that a “judge may close a pretrial hearing only if (1) the dissemination of information would create a clear and present danger to the fairness of the trial; and (2) the prejudicial effect of such information on trial fairness cannot be avoided by any reasonable alternative means.”
Id. The Court explained that “mere conjecture and allegations of prejudicial publicity” cannot justify an exclusion order.
Id. The judge must “issue a written order setting forth specific factual findings in this regard.”
Id.
Open Courts Compendium Colorado - Reporters Committee
The press made this argument for a Constitutional right to media access in the 2018 case of In re Colorado v. Sir Mario Owens. The Colorado Supreme Court didn't bite:
"... (W)e have never recognized any such constitutional right—whether under the First Amendment or Article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. Petitioner’s near-exclusive reliance on this court’s opinion in
Wingfield is misplaced. In
Wingfield, we analyzed a statutory prohibition against the inspection of court records in pending cases by non-parties. See, 410 P.2d at 512. We concluded that while no “absolute right to examine” court records exists, inspection may be permitted “at the discretion of the court.” Id.at 513. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, this court did not hold in
Wingfield that limiting access to court records violates the First Amendment. See, id. We decline to do so now in the absence of any indication from the nation’s high court that access to all criminal justice records is a constitutionally guaranteed right belonging to the public at large.
We also see no compelling reason to interpret our state constitution as guaranteeing such a sweeping—and previously unrecognized—right of unfettered access to criminal justice records. On the contrary, such a ruling would do violence to the comprehensive open records laws and administrative procedures currently in place—including, but not limited to, the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, §§24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2017)—that are predicated upon the absence of a constitutionally guaranteed right of access to criminal justice records."
The media petitioned the SCOTUS for review of this decision. The petition was denied.
There is no constitutional right of access.
I tend to agree with you that the laws should change to provide more access in this day and age, and I hope the new Rule 55.1 will facilitate a careful, experience-based evolution of the rules.
But advocates who suggest the law already provides for more access than Judge Murphy allowed in this case are misrepresenting the law. The CFOIC and its media clients folded their hand because they knew an appeal would not bring change.
@Seattle1 is right. Legislation is the fast way to change the law regarding access. Whether fast change in this area is wise change is a matter in dispute, so the legislature may take its time, too...
