Appeals court rejects the state’s effort to seal records and require secret trials for teens accused of murder, other serious crimes

A federal appeals court ruled against the state and for the Hartford Courant Monday in the newspaper’s suit to overturn a new law that closes courtrooms and seals police records in the cases against some teenagers charged with the most serious crimes, such as murder, armed robbery and rape.

The decision by the U.S. Court of appeals for the Second Circuit affirms a District Court decision in Hartford in July that a 2019 state law denying the press and public contemporaneous access to the cases against 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds violates constitutional protections that guarantee the press and public access to the criminal courts.

The year-old law is the most visible part of a package of measures pushed in recent years by juvenile justice advocates whose goal is diverting teens from the criminal justice system and the stigma associated with arrest and prosecution for violent crimes. Supporters say teens — even those whose cases are transferred by law to adult court — require special treatment because they are developmentally immature compared to adults, are prone to act impulsively and can be haunted for the remainder of their lives by the record of their crime

The law was written to hide the identity of teens by sealing records and providing for closed-courtroom trials for those whose cases are transferred, by law or judicial order, to the public, adult division of Superior Court. Under the new law, the records of those teens become public when there is a verdict in the case, either innocent or guilty, or when the teen is convicted as the result of a guilty plea.

“This act is an impediment to the ability of the Courant to inform its readers about issues of deep concern to them,” said Andrew Julien, the Courant’s Publisher and Editor-in-Chief. “We are pleased that — for a second time — a court has ruled in favor of transparency in our criminal justice system.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General William Tong said the office is “reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps.”

The appeals court said the state’s defense of an unconstitutional law showed a misunderstanding of the separate purposes and processes of juvenile court, which is closed to the public, and adult court, which has a centuries-long tradition of openness. In juvenile court, youthful offenders are found to be delinquent and referred for treatment. In adult court, there are trials subject to public scrutiny, offenders are found to be guilty or not guilty and punishment is imposed.

Tong’s office argued to the appeals court that, since teenagers can be judged secretly in juvenile court, privacy protections should follow them into adult court. Both the district and appeals courts disagreed, saying that the juvenile and adult courts operate on entirely different systems and standards for public access and that the state’s position is without legal authority.

In spite of what the appeals court called “overwhelming case law regarding the openness of criminal trials” in adult court, the state argued that society’s approach to juvenile offenders “has evolved greatly over time,” eliminating the need to keep the trials of teens in adult court public. But as support for its argument, the state relied on cases where confidentiality in juvenile court was upheld.

“Those cases support the unremarkable assertion that juvenile courts typically proceed in private, but they do not refute the presumption of openness applicable to regular criminal cases,” the appeals court said. “In other words, defendants have failed to cite to any authority refuting the district court’s holding or the Courant’s contention that criminal proceedings have historically been open to the press and public, even when juveniles were involved.”

Both the appeals and district courts said there are circumstances that could justifying the closing of adult court proceedings against 15, 16 or 17-year olds charged with the most serious felonies. But the appeals court said orders closing adult court must be narrowly tailored to specific cases. It said the blanket court closure required by the state law is overly broad and “violates the Courant’s right of access to the courts.”

“Connecticut’s interest in protecting juveniles will be sufficiently served if there is a presumption of openness that can be reviewed on a case-by-cases basis,” the appeals court said. It said the state offered “no explanation as to why this would not adequately serve the state’s interest in protecting juveniles from the stigma of being criminally tried.”

The appeals judges referred to one of the state’s most notorious criminal cases to demonstrate overreach by the blanket court closure order contained in the new law: The murder case against 60-year Michael Skakel. The case was sealed under the new law, even though he was 40 when charged, because the offense took place when he was 15 years old.

“We need not strain ourselves to think of other examples where the statute would broadly overreach,” the appeals court said. “For instance, gang prosecutions involving juveniles are not uncommon, and under the Act, Connecticut courts would be required to conduct numerous secret jury trials, where, given the seriousness of the crimes usually involved, the risk of unfair stigma does not seem to be outweighed by the substantial public interest in disclosure.”

In his ruling for the Courant in July, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea concluded that the state law is at odds with a succession of U.S. Supreme Court first amendment rulings and the country’s long tradition of public access to the courts — access that is intended to impose accountability on the judicial process.

Shea ordered the state judiciary to unseal the case records of teens transferred to adult court and to open the courtrooms. Execution of the order was postponed, pending the outcome of the state’s appeal. Appellate judges Denny Chin, Joseph F. Bianco and Steven J. Menashi were on the panel that heard the case.