Two years ago, the state’s judicial watchdog agency issued a celebrated opinion that stated what should be self-evident to almost anyone: Georgia’s courtrooms are open to the public.
That openness is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence: the public's right to enter and observe its courts helps preserve the fairness and integrity of the justice system. To that end, Georgia's Judicial Qualifications Commission has held that judges may close a courtroom only on a case-by-case basis and only after making a specific finding on the need to do so. No blanket exclusions — such as signs on courtroom doors that say “no children" — may be applied.
Yet the Council of State Court Judges is now asking the Georgia Supreme Court to reconsider key facets of the opinion before it becomes a hard and fast rule. The request, recently filed by DeKalb County State Court Judge Wayne Purdom, has surprised First Amendment lawyers and brought a sharp response from the judicial watchdog agency’s chairman.
The judges’ request “is really little more than a faintly veiled attempt to say, ‘You can’t tell me what to do in my courtroom,’” Lester Tate, the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s chairman, told the court in a response filed Monday. The commission “hasn’t told anyone to do anything other than obey the law as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in courtrooms that belong to the public rather than the judges that occupy their benches.”
The state court judges assert that they have the authority to bar children from their courts, while the Judicial Qualifications Commission says the Constitution forbids such general prohibitions.
Also contrary to the commission’s ruling, the judges say there is nothing wrong with deputies asking people who arrive in court to identify themselves and state their business. This is intended not to discourage people from attending court proceedings but to encourage efficiency by, for example, helping people who might be lost, the judges say.
‘Undermine the public’s faith’
Georgia’s judges have a checkered history in keeping courtrooms open to the public.
Two South Georgia counties, for example, allowed only immediate relatives into court when a loved one entered a plea to criminal charges. This yearslong practice sparked litigation against judges and sheriffs and a federal court ruling that said the rule “could undermine the public’s faith in the modern criminal justice system.” In 2013, Ben Hill and Crisp counties settled the case by agreeing to open their courtrooms to all.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a drug-trafficking conviction in DeKalb County because a judge barred the defendant’s uncle from the courtroom during jury selection. Trial judges “are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials,” the high court said.
Even after that ruling, some Georgia judges continued to impede courtroom access. Some barred children, meaning that single parents who showed up in court with a child in tow had to leave. Some judges locked doors to their courtrooms during trial testimony, only allowing public access during breaks. Some had deputies ask attendees to identify themselves and explain why they were there.
On behalf of the Council of State Court Judges, Purdom told the state Supreme Court that judges have the discretion to prohibit children from their courtrooms. In his filing, Purdom included a link to the U.S. Supreme Court’s website to show the high court itself “has an informal policy of excluding or discouraging visits by children under 12.”
But the high court’s website says the justices do not ban children at all. It says that while it’s not recommended, given the formal nature of court sessions, children may indeed attend court. And children do occasionally accompany their parents who attend the court’s arguments, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Judges and court staff may remove anyone — adults or children — from court if they cause a disruption, Tate’s court filing said. But people cannot be categorically excluded from court “on the off chance they might cause a disruption.”
‘This is an open process’
Judge Purdom said the judges and the judicial commission were not that far apart on the rules.
“We view our disagreement as very limited, but still important,” he said in a statement issued Tuesday. The council wants to see whether the commission exceeded its authority in those areas, he said.
Last year, the Georgia First Amendment Foundation presented an award to the Judicial Qualifications Commission because its opinion led to the removal of many barriers that prohibited public access to the courts. (The foundation’s new president is Shawn McIntosh, a deputy managing editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)
Atlanta lawyer Gerry Weber, a member of the foundation’s board of directors, expressed surprise the state court judges are opposing facets of the commission’s opinion.
“A blanket rule that minors cannot be allowed in court is simply unconstitutional,” Weber said. “There is no Supreme Court ruling on open courtrooms that has a footnote that says ‘except minors.’”
Judges should do all they can to welcome the public into their courtrooms, he said. This includes not having deputies and bailiffs ask people intrusive questions that give them impression they shouldn’t be there.
“The commission’s opinion mirrors constitutional rules that have been in place for decades,” Weber said. “This is an open process. The judges are public officials. And these are open courtrooms.”
