Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related FFQ: Evidence In Camera

I asked this question last night on IRC, but just in case there's any more legal eagles out there who can help...

If a defendant in a court case has evidence which s/he doesn't want to be made public, can s/he ask for the case - or part of the case - to be heard in camera (ie a closed court with no press, public, and maybe even no jury)? If so, is it the judge who has to decide and would it be the defendant's attorney who would make the application to the judge?

And as an extra, how empty could a closed court be?

Thanks!

Yvonne

I'm assuming this is NOT a juvenile case -- those are automatically closed to all but involved parties.

And just having "evidence which s/he doesn't want to be made public," would likely NOT be sufficient to convince a judge to close the proceedings. Especially since the media fights very hard against any such case.

Here 's an interesting link.

Closed hearings may be granted to protect such things as trade secrets -- but even then, it's not always that simple.

Now here 's an interesting case! Not US law, but interesting nonetheless. And here's a NY case .

This article has an interesting discussion on the topic.

In most cases, we would be talking about state laws and precedents, and those can vary significantly. Within reason, you can have New Troy law be whatever works.

And of course, this is a currently-changing area of law -- some things would have been different (easier? harder? not sure) five or ten years ago.

Hey Yvonne,

(Keep in mind that this is based on Canadian law)

The judge would be the one to decide to close the court. This would be done based on strict criteria - it is not just one side saying that they want the courtroom closed.

What would normally happen would be that either the prosecution or the defense would make a verbal motion to the judge, asking that the courtroom be closed to the public. Both sides would be allowed to argue the issue and the judge would make the decision. However, in most cases where a court is closed, one side brings the motion and, if it isn't an issue to the other side, they won't object. However, it is still up to the judge to make the decision based on the statitory criteria. (Which some judges worry about more than others)

Although I have never had occasion to see it, I imagine there is a process whereby the media can object. But usually it isn't worth it to the media to be bothered. I'd have to look up the procedure in that case since the media wouldn't automatically have standing to object.

As for how closed a closed courtroom is, that depends. As was said above, a youth court is a closed court. However, that being said, when youth court is in session (at least here), the kids, their parents and even friends can sit in the court for the entire court session even when it isn't their case being heard. Lawyers come and go as they please.

On the other hand, I can recall a rape case where the judge closed the court. It was a closed court and that meant that the only people in the court room were those required to be there AND officers of the court (In other words, as a lawyer, I was allowed to come and go as I pleased).

In another instance, there was a drug case. The prosecution wanted the courtroom closed because there was still an active investigation taking place. They didn't want undercover cops jeopardized. When I tried to go into the courtroom to collect my briefcase, I was stopped. I was floored. It was the only time I have ever been kept out of a courtroom.

I can also recall one instance where I had a client who didn't want the whole world to know her/his business. It wasn't a case which would have commanded media attention. So I simply stood his/her matter down to the end of the day, when everyone else had finished, and basically accomplished the goal of a closed courtroom even though I didn't have a case to close the courtroom.

I hope that helps.

If you need further information or legal assistance, please feel free to email me.

ML