Balancing the rights of public access and privacy in the courts

by Frank J. Williams

Of all government entities, the judiciary is perhaps the most accessible institution. We welcome and encourage the public to observe proceedings in our courthouses and the vast majority of court records are available for public inspection. Additionally, decisions in our Supreme and Superior Courts are most often conveyed in written opinions that detail the court’s rationale for issuing a decision, complete with supporting legal precedents and citations.

Yet even given this degree of openness, the judiciary remains poorly understood. While we are taking steps to educate and inform the citizenry of important issues related to court processes and important concepts such as judicial independence, I have long felt that access and openness go hand in hand with the public’s trust and confidence in their third branch of government.

The Rhode Island Judiciary has gone to great lengths to make public records more accessible to the citizens of Rhode Island. In every courthouse public terminals are available to allow access to information designated as “open” under rule and law. Court clerks also make themselves available to help the public access the information for which they search. The Judicial Records Center is also an important resource for those in search of archived records and has recently unveiled a new Web site with helpful information for the public. Additionally, the Rhode Island Judicial Technology Center is often able to respond to requests for statistics and information relevant to important judicial issues and trends.

Recently the judiciary has taken the additional step of providing Internet access to certain public records. Previously, individuals seeking access to criminal court records were required to physically visit courthouses, battling parking and waiting in line for service. CourtConnect provides online access to public information contained in the Rhode Island Adult Criminal Database and made its debut on the court Web site in the summer of 2001. CourtConnect has dramatically enhanced access to this information of interest especially to attorneys, employers, law enforcement, media, and others in our state.

Yet to the extent that the judiciary seeks to make our courts more open and accessible, we must also be sensitive to an individual’s right to privacy. In many cases, these concerns are well-understood and accepted by nearly all. Court matters involving juveniles, for example, are not subject to the same laws affording public access to information. Although court matters of public record can include personal information, other records such as an individual’s health or substance abuse problems, for example, are not accessible to the public. The protection afforded to the foregoing areas is based upon the sensitive nature of the circumstances whereby the privacy of the individual outweighs the right to access and knowledge by the public.

The constant balance between privacy and the public right to access is often dictated by law. Other circumstances require that a judge exercise his or her discretion in a particular case. During the recent process to implement CourtConnect it was noted that the criminal database can contain personal or sensitive information. In some cases, critical personal information such as Social Security numbers and information relating to the victim of a crime could be found within individual files at the courthouses and Judicial Records Center. Although historically, access to such information has been limited by requiring an individual to physically visit a courthouse, given the wide availability of public information via the Internet it was decided that such information would be withheld from the online database.

In addition to concerns over privacy, judges must also weigh the right to public access with an individual’s right to a fair trial. Many believe that the wording of the First and the Sixth Amendments sometimes creates a conflict between free press and a fair trial. Journalists, in particular, defend the public’s right to know, arguing that detailed and accessible information results in a populace that better understands the legal process. Those on the other hand of the issue claim a fair trial cannot be guaranteed if too much information about a case and the parties involved — particularly inadmissible evidence or prior convictions — is accessible to the public, especially the jury.

The right to public access and an individual’s right to a fair trial have also been raised in circumstances where a judge may decide that televised coverage of proceedings might have an adverse impact on a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Unlike the federal courts, the Rhode Island Judiciary often allows television and still cameras to record proceedings in high profile cases, recognizing that such access serves to reassure and illustrate to the public that such proceedings are fairly conducted.

I believe that balance can exist among what may sometimes appear to be conflicting rights and competing interests. The media does have an important role to play in educating the public about the workings of our courts and we in the judiciary need to respect the vital role of the media. In contrast, the media should also recognize that the same vigilance the courts apply to protecting the right to a fair trial has been applied to protecting the right to free speech.

Generally, circumstances where there exists a potential conflict between First Amendment rights and an individual’s Sixth Amendment rights are few and far between. In the vast majority of cases, our courts continue to recognize that criminal proceedings involving adults should be open. As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 5455, 571-73 (1980): “

(W)hen a shocking crime occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows. Thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion … . The crucial prophylactic aspects of the administration of justice cannot function in the dark; no community catharsis can occur if justice is ‘done in a corner (or) in any covert manner.’ Where the trial has been concealed from public view an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted. To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance of justice,’ (which) can best be provided by allowing people to observe it.”

I share Chief Justice Burger’s predilection to maintain a level of public scrutiny of our court proceedings. But above all else, it is important to stress again that balance is the key ingredient in a recipe that recognizes the importance of both the public right to know and the individual right to privacy and a fair trial.

I have often said that the judiciary is the “last refuge” of hope for our democracy, providing a vital outlet for groups and individuals to address their numerous conflicts under the rule of law. If we are unable to stem the tide of lost confidence in our system of justice, I fear that we will find the very foundations of our democracy to be on unstable ground. As Rhode Island’s Chief Justice, I believe that maintaining an open, accessible, and userfriendly judiciary is one of the best ways to restore the public’s confidence in the court system. To achieve this end, I have committed myself to foster a healthy balance between public access and personal privacy while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Frank J. Williams is the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court