Also known as:judicium publicum · public trial · public action
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection requiring that criminal prosecutions occur in proceedings open to public and press attendance. The guarantee promotes fairness, deters misconduct, and fosters confidence in judicial outcomes by subjecting the process to public scrutiny. Closure is permitted only upon specific findings that an overriding interest exists, that the restriction is narrowly tailored, and that reasonable alternatives were considered.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Zoning Trial Room Closure
Luis faced a criminal zoning citation for operating his taco truck in a restricted area. When supporters arrived to watch the bench trial in a cramped city-hall conference room, the bailiff excluded several for lack of space and the judge proceeded without exploring larger venues or other accommodations. Luis objected and appealed the conviction. The reviewing court vacated the judgment because the unjustified exclusion of the public infringed the right to an open proceeding.
Reporter Trial Access Barred
Dana was prosecuted for criminal trespass after filming at a disaster site. The judge excluded all members of the public and press from the courtroom and released only edited daily transcripts. Dana challenged the closure. The court held that the total exclusion without the required findings violated her right to a public trial.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Dictionaries
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court457 U.S. 596 (1982)
Suppression Hearing Exclusion
Jorge faced drug charges and moved to suppress evidence obtained during a search. The trial court closed the suppression hearing to the public at the prosecution's request without making the necessary findings or considering alternatives. Jorge appealed after conviction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the closure of the suppression hearing infringed the public-trial guarantee.
Voir Dire Closed to Family
Jeanette was tried for theft. The court excluded her family members from voir dire without satisfying the criteria for closure. After conviction Jeanette appealed. The reviewing court ordered a new trial because the unjustified exclusion of the public from jury selection violated the right to an open proceeding.
Pretrial Hearing Closure
Jacob was charged with assault. The judge closed a pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress without identifying an overriding interest or making findings on the record. Jacob was convicted and appealed. The court reversed the conviction on the ground that the closure of the hearing infringed the public-trial right.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia448 U.S. 555 (1980)
Bench Trial Public Access
Jacqueline was prosecuted for a regulatory violation. The court conducted the entire bench trial in a small room and turned away members of the public for convenience. Jacqueline appealed the conviction. The appellate court granted relief because the unjustified restriction on public attendance violated the constitutional guarantee of an open trial.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does the public-trial right apply to bench trials as well as jury trials?+
Yes. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial in all criminal prosecutions, and that protection extends to bench trials. Courts may not close proceedings merely for convenience or space limitations without satisfying the required findings and considering alternatives.
What must a court do before closing a criminal proceeding to the public?+
A court must identify an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, ensure the closure is no broader than necessary, consider reasonable alternatives, and make findings on the record supporting the decision.
Supporting sources
Does the public-trial right extend to voir dire of prospective jurors?+
Yes. The right applies to voir dire, and trial courts must make every reasonable effort to accommodate public attendance rather than excluding the public or a defendant's family members without meeting the closure criteria.
Supporting sources
Is the public-trial right violated when a court substitutes edited transcripts for live public access?+
Yes. Complete closure accompanied by delayed and judge-edited summaries denies meaningful public access and infringes the right, because the public and press must be able to observe witnesses and evaluate the fairness of the proceedings in real time.
Supporting sources
438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978)Property
…been unable to develop any “set formula” for determining when “justice and fairness” require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons. See Goldblatt v. Hempstead , 369 U. S. 590, 594 (1962). Indeed, we have frequently…