Limit discretion in judicial secrecy

Justice is best served in sunlight.

So while we are delighted that court records related to federal agent Christopher Deedy’s murder trial were finally released last week, the fact is the proceeding never should have been closed to the public in the first place; the transcript of what happened never should have been sealed; and, once sealed, it should have been opened up the day after Deedy’s mistrial was declared — and that was six months ago, on Aug. 26, 2013.

Releasing the transcript does nothing to address any of those larger issues, and does nothing to prevent Circuit Judge Karen Ahn — the judge in this case — or other Hawaii judges from acting similarly against the public interest in the future. So the seminal issue remains before the Hawaii Supreme Court, in a request for an order outlining limited conditions under which judges can close courts.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now have sought such an order; other television stations, the online news site Civil Beat, The Associated Press and others have filed a brief in support of the request.

This is an issue of grave concern to more than the news media, as it goes to the core of public trust in the integrity of our judicial system.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, civil and criminal court proceedings are supposed to be public. This not only protects the right of a defendant to have a fair trial, but preserves the Constitutional right of citizens to watch their courts in action, an openness that fosters trust in the government authorities who have great power over our lives.

The news media serves as a surrogate for the public in this task, covering trials and other court proceedings in the public interest.

So it’s imperative that the Supreme Court weigh in with clear directions on proper procedures for all judges in this state to follow: Before closing a courtroom and sealing a transcript, the judge should be required to justify that intended action, and the public should have a chance to object before the proceeding is made private. These are not novel concepts. They are well-established precepts under the First Amendment. Hawaii’s Supreme Court should issue guidelines clarifying that this standard applies uniformly here, too, rather than leaving such decisions to the discretion of individual judges.

There are extraordinary instances when it is appropriate to close an otherwise open court proceeding. The high-profile Deedy case was not one of those times, however, as the belatedly released transcripts make crystal clear.

Deedy, a State Department special agent, is charged with fatally shooting Kailua resident Kollin Elderts at a Waikiki McDonald’s restaurant in 2011, while Deedy was in Honolulu for the APEC conference. Although the trial was generally public, Ahn held some private sessions in her chambers and her courtroom before declaring a mistrial because the jury was deadlocked.

The Star-Advertiser and HNN petitioned the high court requesting orders unsealing the transcripts of those official proceedings and directing Ahn not to close any of the proceedings without giving the public a chance to object.

The high court sent the transcript question back to Ahn, who released the documents last week.

Bottom line: There’s nothing in the transcripts that reaches the extraordinary standard a judge presiding over an open court should rise to when seeking to close proceedings. The judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers mainly discussed a potential issue about a juror that had nothing to do with the evidence, or the coming mistrial.

Ultimately, the release of the documents only underscores the larger issues. The Supreme Court must act to ensure this doesn’t happen again.