公开审判权、有条件进入法庭和宪法审查层级

Indiana law review Pub Date : 2024-01-04 DOI:10.18060/27982
Stephen E. Smith
{"title":"公开审判权、有条件进入法庭和宪法审查层级","authors":"Stephen E. Smith","doi":"10.18060/27982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The constitutional test the SupremeCourt has prescribed to review courtroom closures for compliance with the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial is in the nature of strict scrutiny. The Courtrequires an “overriding interest” to justify the closure, and a narrow, minimally restrictive scope to the closure. Many lower courts have imposed a less demanding test for “partial” closures, which admitto the courtroom some, but not all, of the public. These courts require a less demanding justification before closing the courtroom to certain individuals—the justification need be only “substantial,” rather than “overriding.” This standard is in the nature of intermediate scrutiny, as applied in other constitutional contexts. There is a third type of “closure,” however, beyond the complete closures the Supreme Court has reviewed, and the partial closures encountered by other courts. This third type is the imposition of entry conditions on would-be audience members, such as requiring a form of identification. These generally applicable conditions may not actually exclude anyone but could conceivably dissuade some audience members from attending a trial. For instance, an attendee might prefer not to provide identification to court personnel and might be turned away as a result. In keeping with the doctrinal model already followed by the courts—applying “tiered scrutiny” to courtroom closures—conditional courtroom entry should be reviewed according to the most lenient of the tiers, rational basis scrutiny. A sliding scale should apply to public trial scrutiny, “Waller” scrutiny, the most demanding, when all are excluded. “Substantial reason” scrutiny, less demanding, should apply when some are excluded. Andrational basis scrutiny, much less demanding, should apply when no one need be excluded, but for their non-compliance with a general rule. A lesser standard should apply in the case of entry conditions because they differ from other closures and cause minimal prejudice to the purposes of the right to a public trial.","PeriodicalId":81517,"journal":{"name":"Indiana law review","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to a Public Trial, Conditional Courtroom Entry and Tiers of Constitutional Scrutiny\",\"authors\":\"Stephen E. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.18060/27982\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The constitutional test the SupremeCourt has prescribed to review courtroom closures for compliance with the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial is in the nature of strict scrutiny. The Courtrequires an “overriding interest” to justify the closure, and a narrow, minimally restrictive scope to the closure. Many lower courts have imposed a less demanding test for “partial” closures, which admitto the courtroom some, but not all, of the public. These courts require a less demanding justification before closing the courtroom to certain individuals—the justification need be only “substantial,” rather than “overriding.” This standard is in the nature of intermediate scrutiny, as applied in other constitutional contexts. There is a third type of “closure,” however, beyond the complete closures the Supreme Court has reviewed, and the partial closures encountered by other courts. This third type is the imposition of entry conditions on would-be audience members, such as requiring a form of identification. These generally applicable conditions may not actually exclude anyone but could conceivably dissuade some audience members from attending a trial. For instance, an attendee might prefer not to provide identification to court personnel and might be turned away as a result. In keeping with the doctrinal model already followed by the courts—applying “tiered scrutiny” to courtroom closures—conditional courtroom entry should be reviewed according to the most lenient of the tiers, rational basis scrutiny. A sliding scale should apply to public trial scrutiny, “Waller” scrutiny, the most demanding, when all are excluded. “Substantial reason” scrutiny, less demanding, should apply when some are excluded. Andrational basis scrutiny, much less demanding, should apply when no one need be excluded, but for their non-compliance with a general rule. A lesser standard should apply in the case of entry conditions because they differ from other closures and cause minimal prejudice to the purposes of the right to a public trial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana law review\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18060/27982\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/27982","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最高法院为审查法庭关闭是否符合第六修正案规定的公开审判权而规定的宪法检验标准具有严格审查的性质。法院要求有 "压倒一切的利益 "来证明关闭的合理性,并且关闭的范围要狭窄,限制性要最小。许多下级法院对 "部分 "关闭实施了要求较低的检验标准,即允许部分而非全部公众进入法庭。这些法院在对某些人关闭法庭之前,对理由的要求不那么苛刻--理由只需是 "实质性的",而不是 "压倒性的"。这一标准具有中间审查的性质,适用于其他宪法范畴。然而,除了最高法院审查过的完全关闭和其他法院遇到的部分关闭之外,还有第三种类型的 "关闭"。第三种类型是对可能的观众施加进入条件,如要求出示身份证明。这些普遍适用的条件实际上可能不会排斥任何人,但可以想象会劝阻一些旁听者不要参加庭审。例如,旁听者可能不愿向法庭工作人员提供身份证明,结果可能被拒之门外。根据法院已经遵循的理论模式--对法庭关闭采用 "分级审查"--有条件地进入法庭应按照最宽松的级别进行审查,即合理基础审查。当所有人都被排除在外时,对公开审判的审查、"沃勒 "审查、最严格的审查应采用滑动尺度。要求较低的 "实质性理由 "审查应适用于某些人被排除在外的情况。而 "合理依据 "审查的要求要低得多,应适用于没有必要将任何人排除在外,只是因为他们没有遵守一般规则的情况。在入境条件的情况下,应适用较低的标准,因为它们不同于其他封闭措施,对公开审判权的目的造成的损害最小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Right to a Public Trial, Conditional Courtroom Entry and Tiers of Constitutional Scrutiny
The constitutional test the SupremeCourt has prescribed to review courtroom closures for compliance with the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial is in the nature of strict scrutiny. The Courtrequires an “overriding interest” to justify the closure, and a narrow, minimally restrictive scope to the closure. Many lower courts have imposed a less demanding test for “partial” closures, which admitto the courtroom some, but not all, of the public. These courts require a less demanding justification before closing the courtroom to certain individuals—the justification need be only “substantial,” rather than “overriding.” This standard is in the nature of intermediate scrutiny, as applied in other constitutional contexts. There is a third type of “closure,” however, beyond the complete closures the Supreme Court has reviewed, and the partial closures encountered by other courts. This third type is the imposition of entry conditions on would-be audience members, such as requiring a form of identification. These generally applicable conditions may not actually exclude anyone but could conceivably dissuade some audience members from attending a trial. For instance, an attendee might prefer not to provide identification to court personnel and might be turned away as a result. In keeping with the doctrinal model already followed by the courts—applying “tiered scrutiny” to courtroom closures—conditional courtroom entry should be reviewed according to the most lenient of the tiers, rational basis scrutiny. A sliding scale should apply to public trial scrutiny, “Waller” scrutiny, the most demanding, when all are excluded. “Substantial reason” scrutiny, less demanding, should apply when some are excluded. Andrational basis scrutiny, much less demanding, should apply when no one need be excluded, but for their non-compliance with a general rule. A lesser standard should apply in the case of entry conditions because they differ from other closures and cause minimal prejudice to the purposes of the right to a public trial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
NIL Collectives and Title IX: A Proactive Consideration of Title IX's Application to Donor-Driven NIL Collectives Please Don't Leave Me Hanging: A Right to Privacy Argument for Insurance Protection Against Autoerotic Asphyxiation Death Disregarding Uncertainty, Marginalizing Patients A New Sex Education: The Title IX Defense Against "Don't Say Gay" From American Nightmare to American Dream? A Comprehensive Solution to Racially Discriminatory Appraisal Practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1