Access ruling a must-read for all officials

The state Supreme Court ruling that lays out in inspiring detail why it’s so important to have criminal trials open to the public should be required reading for all government officials in Hawaii, elected or appointed. Even though the 66-page decision directly affects public access to criminal proceedings, its foundational arguments ring true for any government operation.

The message is clear: The government functions better when it operates openly, under the scrutiny of the public it is designed to serve.

The decision in this case revolves around the actions of Circuit Judge Karen Ahn, who the high court overwhelmingly ruled had improperly denied news media and the general public access in the 2013 murder trial of Christopher Deedy, a U.S. State Department special agent who fatally shot Kailua resident Kollin Elderts during an altercation at a Waikiki McDonald’s restaurant on Nov. 5, 2011.

Ahn repeatedly conducted proceedings outside public view, over the objections of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, which along with TV station Hawaii News Now sued to have sealed transcripts released and sought to prevent Ahn from acting similarly during Deedy’s current retrial; his first ended with a hung jury.

The court ruled resoundingly in favor of the news media, and therefore the public, saying that all Hawaii criminal trials involving adult defendants are open, a presumption that can be overridden only under narrow circumstances.

Attorney Jeffrey Portnoy, who represented the Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now, hailed the ruling "as the most significant free press case to come out of the Hawaii Supreme Court in many a decade."

And although on a strictly legal basis the ruling affects only the judicial system, the high court’s point-by-point explanation about how public access plays a "significant positive role" in government is instructive for all manner of operations — which is why all government officials should read this ruling. The six "societal interests" advanced by public access translate seamlessly from the realm of criminal proceedings to government operations in general.

As Hawaii’s Supreme Court highlighted:

» Public access promotes informed discussion of governmental affairs.

» Openness provides assurance that the proceedings are conducted fairly.

» Public access has a "significant community therapeutic value" by providing an "outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion."

Societal interest in open court proceedings is especially high in newsworthy cases, and closing any portion of such proceedings is sure to breed suspicion and rampant speculation — as Ahn’s actions did in the Deedy case. Open proceedings resolve such doubts — whether in a criminal trial or, thinking more broadly, a university regents meeting.

» Transparency blunts misconduct; public scrutiny discourages decisions based on secret bias or partiality.

» Public scrutiny enhances the performance of all involved in the judicial process — just as it does in any government agency.

» Public observation of criminal proceedings discourages perjury because witnesses know they will be heard by members of the public who can contradict false testimony. This is equally true of input offered at, say, a land board meeting — sunshine is the best disinfectant.

The immediate good of this ruling is in the instant improvement it spurs in Hawaii’s judicial system: Judges now know not to pull the same secretive stunts Ahn did.

An even broader impact will come if elected and appointed officials throughout Hawaii’s judicial, legislative and executive branches recognize within this ruling the bedrock importance of fostering a more open, transparent government.