In re J. S.
7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2402, 140 Vt. 458, 438 A. 2d 1125 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials, as established in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, does not extend to juvenile delinquency proceedings due to the distinct rehabilitative purpose of juvenile courts, the historical tradition of confidentiality, and the compelling state interests in protecting the juvenile's welfare and promoting rehabilitation.
Facts:
- Two 12-year-old Essex Junction girls were brutally assaulted by two persons in or near a park, resulting in one death and one survivor.
- J. S., a 15-year-old, and a 16-year-old were the alleged assailants.
- J. S. was identified as a juvenile and was subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings under state law.
- The 16-year-old was awaiting trial as an adult in superior court on charges of first-degree murder and sexual assault.
- The Burlington Free Press, a newspaper, had already obtained J. S.'s name and details of his alleged involvement from affidavits filed in the adult's superior court case and publicized this information.
Procedural Posture:
- A judge in the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, issued an order closing J. S.'s juvenile delinquency proceedings to the public, consistent with 33 V.S.A. § 651.
- The Burlington Free Press was granted permission by the District Court to intervene for the sole purpose of petitioning for public access to J. S.'s proceedings.
- A different judge in the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, granted the Free Press's petition, ruling that 33 V.S.A. § 651(c) violated the First Amendment and ordered J. S.'s juvenile proceedings to be open to the public and news media.
- J. S. appealed this order to the Vermont Supreme Court (interlocutory appeal pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5) and simultaneously filed a petition for extraordinary relief (pursuant to V.R.A.P. 21) seeking to vacate the order and exclude the public.
- A majority of the Vermont Supreme Court, in a previous order, disqualified the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s office from representing the State, and the office of the Attorney General subsequently appeared for the State to defend the constitutionality of the juvenile statutes.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials extend to juvenile delinquency proceedings, thereby rendering Vermont's juvenile shield law (33 V.S.A. § 651(c)) unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Underwood, J.
No, the First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials does not extend to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and Vermont's juvenile shield law (33 V.S.A. § 651(c)) is constitutional. The Court distinguished Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, which established a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, by noting the absence of a historical tradition of openness for juvenile proceedings, as evidenced by juvenile shield laws in all 50 states (Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.). Crucially, juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions but serve a rehabilitative purpose, aiming "to remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality" (33 V.S.A. § 631). Therefore, the First Amendment goals of public access (e.g., checking against unjust conviction) are less applicable. The Court emphasized the compelling state interests in confidentiality, implicitly endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court (In re Gault, In re Winship, Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co.), which include protecting the juvenile from stigma, facilitating rehabilitation, ensuring family support, and preventing publicity from encouraging further antisocial acts. The Court rejected the Free Press's argument that 33 V.S.A. § 651(c) grants judges discretion to admit reporters, clarifying that 33 V.S.A. § 651(d) explicitly prohibits public dissemination of information from juvenile hearings without the child's and parent's consent, thereby indicating legislative intent to close proceedings to those seeking to publicize. Finally, the Court dismissed the argument that prior publicity negates the need for confidentiality, explaining that confidentiality protects various aspects beyond just the juvenile's name, such as rehabilitation plans and court records, and that allowing media to dictate openness based on prior publicity would undermine the juvenile justice system's goals.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the First Amendment right of public access, as established in Richmond Newspapers, by creating a strong exception for juvenile proceedings. It solidifies the rehabilitative philosophy underpinning juvenile justice systems, prioritizing the welfare and anonymity of minors over public and press access. The decision underscores judicial deference to legislative intent in structuring specialized legal systems and provides a clear constitutional justification for confidential juvenile proceedings, likely influencing similar challenges to juvenile shield laws across other states by upholding the compelling state interest in rehabilitation.
