SJC: No Right to Audiotape Where Trial Transcript Available

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A documentarian was not entitled to an audiotape of court proceedings where he was able to acquire an official trial transcript, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Winfield (Docket No. 11288).

"Where an official record of the proceeding is available to the public," Justice Ralph Gants wrote, "a presumption of public access to an unofficial record is more likely to generate public confusion than to aid public understanding."

Filmmaker Steve Audette invoked the First Amendment and a common-law right of access to public courtroom records as he sought a copy of the court stenographer's backup audiotape of the proceedings in the trial of Somerville Police Officer Keith Winfield, who was convicted in 2007 of raping and burning an infant niece for whom he was babysitting. Audette's documentary will examine, among other issues, Winfield's continued assertion of his innocence.

As reported by the Universal Hub blog, the SJC ruled that the official trial transcript, a copy of which Audette purchased, and not the audio recording used to prepare the transcript, is the official judicial record.

SJC: Public Records Law Doesn't Override Judicial Protective Order

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeIn Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Fremont Investment & Loan et al. (Case No. 10749), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts this week ruled that courts' traditional power to enter protective orders sealing documents is not overridden by the Commonwealth's public records law (M.G.L. c. 66, sec. 10).

In October 2007, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued Fremont under the Commonwealth's consumer protection law, alleging the mortgage company engaged in predatory lending practices that were unfair and deceptive (Com. v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733 (2008)) Fremont paid a $10 million fine and costs, but during the litigation, the parties filed a joint protective order governing the exchange of purportedly confidential documents.

Samuel J. Lieberman  sought access to the more than 5.5 million pages of these sealed documents from the Attorney General's office via the public records law. Writing for the High Court, Justice Judith Cowin concluded that interpreting the public records law to negate a judicial order sealing documents "would raise serious constitutional doubts as to the validity of the statute." Issuing protective orders is an inherent judicial power essential to the function of the judicial department and the courts' ability to decide cases and cannot be trumped by the public records law, the SJC ruled.