[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000152","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/amendments\/6\/essays\/153\/public-trial\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EPublic Trial\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Amendment VI\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a... public trial....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe right to a public trial in the Sixth Amendment is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history, tradition, and values. It reflects, among other things, the Founders\u2019 hostility toward secret proceedings reaching back to the Star Chamber, which pre-dated the Glorious Revolution in England (1688). There was widespread agreement with Sir Edward Coke\u2019s view, expressed in 1607, that a trial is almost by definition open and public. Thus, Justice Joseph Story, in his\u003Cem\u003E Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1833), emphasized that in \u201cthe established course of the common law\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009trials for crimes\u201d are \u201calways public.\u201d The Supreme Court has echoed this view, stating, \u201cBy immemorial usage, wherever the common law prevails, all trials are in open court, to which spectators are admitted.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EIn re Oliver\u003C\/em\u003E (1948).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ELike most other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the guarantee of a public trial has been construed by the Supreme Court to constrain both federal and state governments. Although deeply rooted and fundamental, the right is not absolute. Although the Sixth Amendment\u2019s public-trial right belongs to the criminal defendant, the public and the press also have a First Amendment interest in open proceedings. Therefore, \u201ca defendant can, under some circumstances, waive his constitutional right to a public trial, [but] he has no absolute right to compel a private trial.\u201d \u003Cem\u003ESinger v. United States\u003C\/em\u003E (1965). In addition, when the \u201cdignity, order and decorum\u201d that are and must be \u201cthe hallmarks of all court proceedings in our country,\u201d are flagrantly disregarded, \u003Cem\u003EIllinois v. Allen \u003C\/em\u003E(1970), the proceedings may, if necessary, be closed temporarily. \u003Cem\u003EWaller v. Georgia\u003C\/em\u003E (1984). For example, judges will occasionally close portions of trials to protect minor victims in sex-offense trials or when necessary to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information, such as the identity of undercover witnesses. Though the Sixth Amendment\u2019s guarantee of a public \u201ctrial\u201d includes the impaneling of the jury and return of the verdict, as well as certain pretrial proceedings, it does not require that all stages and phases of criminal prosecutions be open to the public. Grand jury proceedings, for example, are secret. \u003Cem\u003EUnited States v. Procter \u0026amp; Gamble Co.\u003C\/em\u003E (1958). Still, the Court\u2019s most recent treatment of the matter confirms the existence of a strong presumption in favor of public criminal trials, including juror \u003Cem\u003Evoir dire \u003C\/em\u003Eproceedings. \u003Cem\u003EPresley v. Georgia \u003C\/em\u003E(2010).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFor individual defendants, as Justice Hugo L. Black observed in the \u003Cem\u003EOliver \u003C\/em\u003Ecase, a public trial serves as a \u201csafeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution.\u201d As Justice John M. Harlan later put it, \u201cthe public-trial guarantee embodies a view of human nature, true as a general rule, that judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors will perform their respective functions more responsibly in an open court than in secret proceedings.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EEstes v. Texas\u003C\/em\u003E (1965). Public trials also make proceedings known to potential witnesses and help to deter untruthful testimony. As Sir William Blackstone wrote in his \u003Cem\u003ECommentaries on the Laws of England\u003C\/em\u003E (1765\u20131769), the \u201copen examination of witnesses\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009in the presence of all mankind, is much more conducive to the clearing up of truth, than private and secret examination.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009. [A] witness may frequently depose that in private which he will be ashamed to testify in a public and solemn tribunal.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThus, any closure of a criminal trial implicates not only the defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment rights but also the First Amendment freedoms of the press and citizens generally. Open trials not only protect the innocent from wrongful conviction, they also serve the public interest in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system and its officers. As the Supreme Court has observed, \u201cthe First Amendment right of access to criminal trials\u201d reflects the \u201ccommon understanding\u201d that \u201ca major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EGlobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court\u003C\/em\u003E (1982). Our constitutionalized preference for open trials, in other words, reflects our democratic commitment to \u201cthe\u0026nbsp;ultimate right of the public to change policy and policymakers.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EGannett Co. v. DePasquale\u003C\/em\u003E (1979). The Court has also relied upon the First Amendment to guarantee a presumption of public trials in civil cases. \u003Cem\u003ERichmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia \u003C\/em\u003E(1980). Nonetheless, a lawyer may be disciplined for statements to the press about a pending case he is involved in for \u201cspeech that is substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect.\u201d \u003Cem\u003EGentile v. State Bar of Nevada\u003C\/em\u003E (1991).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Richard_Garnett.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/law.nd.edu\/people\/faculty-and-administration\/teaching-and-research-faculty\/richard-w-garnett\/\u0022\u003ERichard W. Garnett\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000152-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000152-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000152-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000152-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAkhil R. Amar, \u003Ci\u003ESixth Amendment First Principles\u003C\/i\u003E, 84 Geo. L.J. 641 (1996)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EAnnual Review of Criminal Procedure: Sixth Amendment at Trial\u003C\/i\u003E, 91 Geo. L.J. 584 (2003)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThomas M. Fleming, Annotation, \u003Ci\u003EExclusion of Public from State Criminal Trial in Order to Prevent Disturbance by Spectators or Defendant\u003C\/i\u003E, 55 A.L.R. 4th 1170 (1987)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAlfredo Garcia, \u003Ci\u003EClash of the Titans: The Difficult Reconciliation of a Fair Trial and a Free Press in Modern American Society\u003C\/i\u003E, 32 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1107 (1992)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJohn H. Langbein, \u003Ci\u003EShaping the Eighteenth Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources\u003C\/i\u003E, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1983).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThomas F. Liotti, \u003Ci\u003EClosing the Courtroom to the Public: Whose Rights Are Violated?\u003C\/i\u003E, 63 Brook. L. Rev. 501 (1997)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMax Radin, \u003Ci\u003EThe Right to a Public Trial\u003C\/i\u003E, 6 Temp. L.Q. 381 (1932)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000152-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EIn re\u003C\/i\u003E Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EUnited States v. Procter \u0026amp; Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EEstes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESinger v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIllinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERichmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGlobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPress-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWaller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPress-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EArizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPresley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000152-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000139\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EFreedom of Speech and of the Press\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000153\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EJury Trial\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000155\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EConfrontation Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]