Federal appeals court: R.I. court's practice on records unconstitutional

By The Associated Press

06.14.02

Printer-friendly page

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal appeals court has ruled that the standard practice by the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island of keeping legal memoranda out of public files is unconstitutional.

However, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the judge presiding over the Operation Plunder Dome trial was within his rights to keep some of those documents out of that particular case's file given the high-profile nature of the trial.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres is presiding over a trial that accuses Mayor Vincent Cianci Jr., his former top aide Frank Corrente, and businessman Richard Autiello of soliciting bribes for city jobs, contracts, tax breaks and favors.

Jurors heard seven weeks of testimony before beginning deliberations on June 12.

"Political corruption cases tend to attract widespread media attention, and the Cianci case is a paradigmatic example," the appeals court said in an opinion issued June 12. "Here, moreover, the district court cited book and verse, cataloguing specific incidents that fueled its concerns that the defendants' ability to receive a fair trial was in danger of being substantively compromised by unrestrained disclosures."

The appeals court, responding to a lawsuit filed by The Providence Journal, also ruled that Torres also did not overstep his bounds in rejecting requests for copies of audio and videotapes played throughout the trial.

In part, the court said that members of the public had access to the tapes by attending the trial, and noted that seats were available in the courtroom as well as a separate room where an audio and video feed was available.

Nevertheless, it said that the U.S. District Court's blanket ban on making legal memos public should be reviewed and modified to make the fullest disclosure possible.

Howard Merten, an attorney who represented the newspaper, told the Journal in yesterday’s editions that the appeals court's ruling is significant because it will prompt the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to fall in line with procedures common in other courts.

Since the early 1980s, the general practice in the federal court in Rhode Island has been to keep legal memos — documents that explain in detail why lawyers are seeking certain rulings — out of the public court file.

In the Plunder Dome case, under appeals from The Providence Journal, the judge ruled that some of those memos would be placed in the public file if, after reviewing them, he determined that they contained no sensitive information — such as from the grand jury. However, the judge refused to redact any of that sensitive information that might allow some memos to be released.

Among the reasons cited by Torres was that legal memoranda are directed to the judge. He said sending them straight to the judge lessens the need for him to take the entire court file and a blanket policy discourages overzealous lawyers from trying to improperly influence the public.

The appeals court said the judge's reasons were not valid and amounted to a First Amendment violation.

Still, the court had high praise for Torres and his handling of a high-profile case that has grabbed headlines across Rhode Island for more than a year.

"A high-profile, multi-defendant political corruption case is bound to test the mettle of the most experienced trial judge," the court wrote. "We admire the manner in which Chief Judge Torres has responded to that challenge."

Related

Newspaper again denied access to records in R.I. corruption case
Federal judge rules releasing search-warrant affidavit would compromise defendants' right to fair trial.  12.13.01

Federal judge: Fewer filings in corruption case can be withheld from public
Court orders lawyers in Rhode Island case to limit number of sealed documents they file.  05.26.01