Vermont: Court Documents and Hearings
Summary
TLDRThis educational webinar, hosted by the New England First Amendment Coalition, features instructors Emily Sweeney, Hillary Rich, and Harrison Stock, delving into the intricacies of Vermont's court system. The session offers an in-depth exploration of public access to court proceedings, recording rights in courtrooms, and accessing court records, emphasizing statutes, procedural rules, and exceptions. It also provides guidance on contesting access denials and understanding the nuances of juvenile proceedings, grand jury confidentiality, and the impact of media registration on recording rights. This comprehensive overview aims to educate on navigating Vermont's legal landscape, highlighting the coalition's efforts to promote transparency and public understanding of judicial processes.
Takeaways
- 😊 There is generally a presumption of public access to court proceedings and records in Vermont, with some exceptions
- 😃 Rules around access to court hearings and records in Vermont come from various sources like court procedures, statutes and case law
- 📜 There are several types of court proceedings that are typically closed to the public, like juvenile proceedings
- 🔐 Parties can request the court be closed but face a high bar to justify closure
- 🎥 Media has the right to visually and orally record most public court proceedings with some limitations
- 🗒️ The public can access records from public court proceedings, with exceptions for sensitive records
- 🔒 Parties can request records be sealed but must clearly justify the privacy need
- ❗️If denied access to a court hearing or record, the media and public have options to challenge the denial
- 📢 Special access to non-public court records may be available for certain individuals/groups
- 🏛 The rules for access to court records are separate from the public records act and specific to the court system
Q & A
What are the main sources for rules regarding access to court proceedings in Vermont?
-The main sources are the rules of procedures for specific courts, certain statutes, and case law or common law.
What test does the court use to analyze whether a criminal proceeding should be open or closed?
-The court looks at whether the place and process have been historically open to the press and public, and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process.
What are some exceptions to the general right of public access to hearings?
-Some exceptions are grand jury proceedings, juvenile proceedings, proceedings involving certain protections for child victims of sexual offenses, and cases where a party requests the court be closed.
What rules govern attorneys and judges when speaking publicly about ongoing cases?
-Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct limiting statements that could prejudice a case. Judges are bound by a judicial code of ethics restricting comments that could affect case outcomes.
What are the differences in recording rights between participants, non-participants, and registered media?
-Registered media have the broadest recording rights. Participants can record orally but not visually. Non-participants have more restrictions, like turning phones off when the jury is present.
How can the media challenge denied access to a hearing?
-The media can file a motion to intervene at the trial court level. If unsuccessful, they can appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court or petition for extraordinary relief.
What is the process for requesting access to a sealed court record?
-File a motion under Rule 9C specifying the case and record sought. The court must promptly rule. An appeal may be possible with court permission.
When would you appeal a records denial to a court's presiding judge rather than filing a motion?
-Appeal to the presiding judge if denied by a records custodian, not in an ongoing case. This follows public records request procedures.
What information must be provided in a motion to seal a court record?
-The motion must identify the specific filing, privacy interests served, legal authority, proposed redactions, confirmation of service on affected parties, etc.
What is the standard of proof required for a court to seal a record over public objection?
-The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that good cause and exceptional circumstances exist, and no reasonable alternative to sealing exists.
Outlines
😃 Overview of public access rules for Vermont state courts
This paragraph provides an introduction to the webinar, which will explain public access rules for hearings and records in Vermont state courts. It introduces the instructor, Emily Sweeney from the Boston Globe, and the presenters from the ACLU of Vermont who will explain the court rules in detail.
😃 Rules and exceptions for public access to court hearings in Vermont
This paragraph discusses sources of rules regarding public access to court hearings in Vermont, such as court procedures, statutes, and case law. It explains that the right of access is broad but qualified, with some statutory exceptions like grand jury proceedings and juvenile cases.
😃 Requirements and process for closing courtrooms in Vermont
This paragraph covers the requirements and process for closing a courtroom to the public upon request of a party to a case. It explains there is a high bar to overcome the presumption of openness, including showing a compelling interest and no reasonable alternatives.
😃 Limits on sharing of information by attorneys and judges in Vermont
This paragraph discusses ethical rules limiting what attorneys and judges may share publicly about ongoing cases in Vermont outside of court proceedings.
😃 Media access and recording rules for Vermont courts
This paragraph explains the registration system for media access to Vermont courts, the different rules on recording and transmission of images and sounds based on location (in courthouse vs. courtroom) and attendee status, and judges' ability to limit coverage.
😃 Accessing recordings and reports of Vermont court proceedings
This paragraph notes that court video recordings of public proceedings become public records which can be duplicated. Audio recordings of Vermont Supreme Court oral arguments are also available online.
😃 Overview of rules and processes for accessing Vermont court records
This final paragraph summarizes the discussion from the presenters about navigating rules and appealing denials to access different types of Vermont court records, using specific procedures based on the reason for and source of the denial.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡courtroom
💡hearings
💡records
💡access
💡public
💡media
💡limits
💡appeals
💡custodian
💡rules
Highlights
There is no comprehensive rule or statute that governs public access to court proceedings in Vermont
Vermont court hearings are presumptively open to the public with closure being the exception rather than the rule
In criminal context, court has a test to analyze whether a proceeding should be open or closed
Grand jury proceedings themselves are closed by statutes that limit who can even be in the courtroom
Juvenile proceedings are almost invariably closed - no access to hearings and limits on publicizing information
Attorneys are bound by professional conduct rules limiting extrajudicial statements that could prejudice a case
Registered media have broader rights to visually and orally record court proceedings compared to other attendees
The presumption for access to court records is that the public has access to a record of that proceeding
Even if a record is not publicly accessible, journalists/researchers may still get access under special provisions
Rules detail process to seal records, objections allowed, and requires court to use least restrictive means
Media can intervene at trial court level to challenge limits on access, and appeal an unsatisfactory decision
If denied a record due to a court ruling, file a motion under Rule 9 to access non-public record
If denied by records custodian, appeal to presiding judge within 7 days under Rule 6
Custodians must follow public records act timelines for response and explain procedure for appeals
Can appeal records denial by custodian to state Supreme Court within 30 days
Transcripts
I'm Justin Silverman of the New England
First Amendment Coalition thank you for
joining us for this lesson on New
England state courts this lesson is the
second in our series on state court so
if you haven't already please view the
introductory class for your respective
State before moving on to this lesson
all classes can be found in our foi
guide at mefact.org as well as on our
YouTube channel fivefreedoms
in addition to state courts we also
offer lessons on state public record and
open meeting laws as well as the federal
Freedom of Information Act each class
builds off one another and they all
collectively provide a curriculum you
won't find anywhere else
before we begin today's lesson a special
thanks to everyone who is helping us
make these classes happen
BJ New England the Rhode Island
foundation and the New England society
of news editors
appreciate everyone's support
now to introduce you to today's
instructor
Emily Sweeney hey everybody I'm Emily
Sweeney from the Boston Globe and I want
to thank you all for joining us for this
webinar which is brought to you by the
New England First Amendment coalition
now this session is going to take a
deeper dive into the courts in Vermont
and with us is Hillary rich and Harrison
stock and their staff Attorneys at the
Vermont ACLU and they're going to
explain in Greater detail how the courts
work in the Green Mountain State
Harry and Hillary thanks so much for
being here
thanks for having us Emily
thanks great to be back
so and this part we're going to be
discussing specific proceedings and
Records next slide please
so agenda for today I'm going to first
start by discussing the specific rules
for accessing Court hearings and what
the Press is allowed to record Harry is
then going to be discussing with you all
the specific rules for accessing court
records weather records can be sealed
and how to contest dealings and then
we're both going to discuss what you
should do if you're denied access to a
hearing or to a record and there'll be
also time for questions at the end next
slide
so first regarding the sources for
courtroom rules regarding access to
hearings now there's no comprehensive
rule or statute that governs public
access to court proceedings in Vermont
uh instead we pull these rules from a
couple of different sources and one of
those are the rules of procedures for
specific courts you might remember last
time we talked about how there are six
different divisions of Vermont trial
courts and the Vermont Supreme Court and
each of these has their own sets of
rules uh today we're going to be
focusing primarily on the civil and
criminal rules of procedure rules also
come from certain statutes some statutes
make exceptions for specific types of
proceedings it's important to note that
when we're talking about statutes we are
not talking about the Vermont open
meeting law that law actually includes
explicit provision that it does not
apply to judicial adjudication in
Vermont and we're also pulling from the
case law or the common law as sources of
rules this is when courts issue
decisions that are analyzing or enter in
constitutions and statutes and in
Vermont the courts have held that there
is a general right of public access to
hearings next slide please
however that right of access is Broad
but qualified and that means that there
is a right to access after the public
and the press to court hearings but the
right does have some limits another
Vermont court hearings are productively
open to the public with closure being
the exception rather than the rule and
in the criminal context specifically the
court has a certain test to analyze
whether a proceeding should be open or
closed and it looks to the whether the
place and process have been historically
open to the press in public and if
Public Access plays a significant
positive role in the functioning of the
particular process in question next
slide please
so although the right is Broad there are
of course some exceptions some of these
are found in statutes rules and case law
it's looking first at Grand Jury
proceedings although uh jury selection
is broadly open to the public grand jury
proceedings themselves are closed by
statutes that actually limits who can
even be in the courtroom when the grand
jury proceedings are ongoing there is
also a statute that says members of the
grand jury in Vermont have to take an
oath uh promising to keep deliberation
secret of the grand jury and therefore
grandeurs may not be interviewed about
their deliberations
juvenile proceedings also are an
exception to this right of broad access
and in fact the courts have said that
juvenile proceedings are almost
invariably closed and this means that
delinquency and dependency proceedings
are typically closed to the public uh
there's no access to juvenile court
hearings and there are limits on the
ability to even publicize a juvenile's
name or image without the child or
guardian's consent in juvenile
proceedings
there's also a specific Vermont statute
under which a person under 21 who
commits a crime in Vermont can petition
for something called youthful offender
status and in those cases their case is
actually transferred to the family court
which adjudicates the position on that
application and if they accept that case
actually just stays confidential
there are also protections for children
in non-juvenile courts so for example
child victims of certain sexual offenses
May testify on videotape or through
closed circuit systems and even in those
cases there is a general presumption
against closing the court but the court
still does have discretion there are
also a category of exceptions for when a
party requests that the court be closed
and that is sold primarily from case law
and we'll be discussing it in more
detail in the next slide
so now talking about closing the
courtroom Upon A party's request like we
just said there's a broad right to
access and there's actually even the
presumption of access and to overcome
that a party-seek enclosure has to
demonstrate that closer closure is
essential to preserve higher values and
narrowly tailored to serve that interest
any pre-trial closure order must have a
clear necessity for the protection of
the defendant's right to a fair trial
and be limited in scope and in criminal
proceedings specifically uh closure is
constitutional only when it serves a
compelling interest there's a
substantial probability that without
closure that interest would be harmed
and there's no alternative to protect
that interest
next slide please
so even if uh you have now overcome that
first hurdle which should be a low one
and have access to the courts there are
also the limits on what attorneys and
judges might be willing to share with
you outside of just the hearing itself
attorneys are bound by their own rules
of professional conduct and one of those
rules uh states that an attorney shall
not make extrajudicial statements that
they know or reasonably should know will
be disseminated and have a substantial
likelihood a materially prejudicing a
case now there are um options for what
an attorney can share with you uh things
like the claims the defenses General
identity of the parties typically
scheduling requests for public
assistance and if an attorney's client
has been prejudiced by other statements
made they can make sometimes statements
mitigating that prejudice that their
client has experienced uh judges are
also Bound by a code of ethics called
the Vermont code of judicial conduct now
there's not a Prohibition on
interviewing judges but there is a rule
that a judge shall not while a case is
ongoing make any public comment that
might be reasonably expected to affect
the case outcome impair fairness or
substantially interfere with the case
however a judge can make public
statements in just the course of their
official duties or explaining Republic
information the procedure of the Court
next slide please
also want to talk to you all about
rights regarding reporting in the
courtroom so you've accessed the hearing
and now you would like to record what's
going on and the court divides attendees
into different categories or buckets and
different rights are attached depending
on who you are in the courtroom and
there's different rights for
participants non-participants and the
registered media
so if you're interested in becoming a
registered media you would typically
apply registration certificate with the
court administrator there's a specific
court order
um that says how to do this it's a
pretty straight forward form you can
apply for permanent registration or for
one-time registration or if you don't
have a permanent or one-time
registration you can apply to act
temporarily this should not be a
difficult form to complete but you
shouldn't receive a lot of procedural
hurdles but just as a caveat the court
has no obligation to hold up proceedings
while you're getting your ducks in a row
so you'd want to get that registration
certificate in advance of actually the
hearing that you want to attend
next slide please
so not only are there limits depending
on who you are but there's also limits
depending on where you are so looking
first at rights about recording when
you're in the court house more broadly
so this is uh pulled from uh Vermont
rules of civil procedure 79.2 and any
person may possess and use a device in
public areas non-disruptively but
participants and non-participants cannot
record or transmit images or sounds of
an individual outside of a courtroom
without their consent registered media
however have much broader recording
rights they can generally orally and
Visually record although there are
limits on what they can do with
sequestered Witnesses confidential
proceedings the jury except when they're
seated and it's necessary and they may
visually record but not orally record uh
bench conferences conferences between
co-counsel and activity during recess so
for example if the judge calls the
attorneys up to the bench a member of
the registered media can record that
discussion with um just visually but
they can't audio record that
confidential dialogue between the judge
and the attorneys
next slide please
recording in the courtroom the rules are
a little bit different primarily for
participants and non-participants now no
one can use a device to orally
communicate or use a device with a
distracting sound so you can't take a
loud phone call when you're in the court
room which is pretty obvious
participants can orally record but can't
visually record or transmit there are a
few exceptions non-participants when the
jury is present has to have their phones
off or silent and cannot use them but
the registered media if they have that
certificate has much broader rights
similar to what we discussed in the next
slide there are certain exceptions with
like the type of interaction that
they're recording but they are permitted
to orally and Visually record subject to
the exceptions we discussed there is
also a limit regarding the location of
the recording
um attorneys uh I'm sorry the judge and
the court administrator typically
consult with representatives of the
media to determine an area under which
you can record
um how ever if there is an issue with
multiple members as the media who all
want to record at once the court may
require them to agree amongst themselves
on an enragement for pooled coverage
go to the next slide please
the judge themselves they'll have it may
make some limitations on recording or
may be interested in doing so and if the
court is considering whether to prohibit
terminate limit
um recording they first have to provide
notice and they have to weigh several
factors including um whether the impact
of recording will have on the rights of
parties to a fair trial uh the nature of
the testimony and the public value the
likelihood of harm to people involved in
the case the characteristics of people
involved in the case and whether the
jury is sequestered or other good cause
next slide please
now even if you haven't actually been
recording in the moment it's possible
that you can acquire reportings after
the fact so each docket entry should
indicate whether the proceeding was
video recorded you know by the court
itself those video recordings if they
were of a public proceeding become
public records and duplicated copies may
be ordered at the end of the trial or at
any time by a party next slide please
and for the Vermont Supreme Court
specifically they have their own rule
that the news media May record their
proceedings unless the Chief Justice
directs otherwise and audio recordings
are available from the past two years of
oral arguments at the website on the
slide
and I'm going to hand it over to Harry
to discuss records specifically
so you've just heard about accessing
particular proceedings now we're going
to talk about how do you access
particular court records our last
presentation you may remember that we
talked generally about where to go and
how to think about different types of
Court records where they might be
located what we're going to do today is
we're going to do a little bit of a
deeper dive into particular types of
records and ways of thinking about if
you're seeking a particular record or
you've been denied a particular record
how to think about whether or not that
denial is correct or whether or not this
is the type of record you might be able
to get access to and as we go about
doing that I really just want to remind
everyone kind of two background rules
the first is that for any question about
court records the ultimate Authority on
this is not the Vermont public records
act but it's the Vermont rules for
access to court records which is a
separate set of rules created by the
Judiciary which govern access to court
records and so if you ever have a
question about how to get particular
types of Court records or whether or not
a denial is proper you shouldn't look to
the public records act despite the
record the public records act played in
plain language you should look to the
Vermont rules for access to court
records the second background rule that
I want to remind everyone of is uh a
great one because of Hillary's wonderful
copy has a presentation just now which
is that the
presumption for access to court records
is that the public access to a court
record
s whether or not there was public access
to that type of Court proceeding so the
rules themselves provide that the public
has access to a proceeding and has
access to a record that proceeding so in
general the rules for accessing records
track the rules for accessing particular
types of proceedings
as you're going about thinking about
whether or not you can get a particular
record or whether or not a record is
properly withheld in general you always
want to engage in a two-step process
the first is to ask under the general
presumptions and rules is what I'm
seeking the kind of record
that the public presumptively under
access to that is is this the kind of
record that anyone can ask for without
giving a reason without showing that
they're they have a particular right of
access
the second question is regardless of
what the answer to that first question
was is there an exemption or an
exception to the general rules that
applies to this specific document and so
we're going to look at General
background rules and then specific rules
as I talked about
the types of records that you presently
have access to crack the types of
proceedings you presumptively have
access to so what kinds of Records what
kinds of cases are presumptively public
and generate presumptively public
records we talked about this a little
bit in our last presentation this is
General civil and criminal proceedings
contested probate matters matters
originating the environmental division
and matters to do with the judicial
Bureau now despite these General
proceedings which generate public
records there are many carve outs and
the place to find the full list of carve
outs is in rule Six B and so if you ever
have a particular question about whether
a particular kind of record is one that
even if it's generated in say a civil
proceeding to which you perceptively
have access whether this is the kind of
document that you maybe don't have
access to even within that presumptively
Public Access proceeding
you want to go to 6B and what 6B tells
you is that there are a number of types
of record that even Within These
presumptively public proceedings are
generally withheld from public access
these include
predictably sensitive types of documents
so DNA analysis search warrants risk
assessments competency evaluations juror
questionnaires and involve particular
matters about juvenile proceedings
um in general these are records which
you might assume have particularly
heightened privacy interests
um and they are records that even if
they're reduced within a proceeding
that's public because they fall within
this because of the type of record they
are they generally fall within uh an
exception to Public Access now you may
say okay the record that I want was
generated in a public proceeding and it
doesn't fall within anything that's
listed in 6B so can I still get the
record or it was it wrong that they
withheld it
to answer that question we have to look
to the more specific rules and there are
as I mentioned very specific rules
um that even if this is the kind of
document to which in you generally have
access to
the particular proceedings or the
particular nature of the document May
mean that this specific example of it is
one that you can't have access to and
the place to look for all of those rules
are in the appendix to rule six
appendix to rule six contains a number
of specific exemptions and
a we would take up the full time if we
were to go through all of them here
here's a number of just kind of examples
of what they look like and as you can
see they are far more specific uh and
tailored than the types of Records which
are carved out in full in rule 6p so as
I mentioned this is contained in
something called the appendix to rule
six in the Vermont rules for public
access to court records and if you're
looking for a particular record it's
always good to check that appendix to
see is there any specific statute
specific rule that applies just to this
type of record
now the good news is that the reverse is
also true
so
even if a record is not the kind of
record to which the public presumptively
have access
you still may be able to get the record
and that's because there are additional
rules which say even if not everyone can
get access to this record that is you
can't go up to the court terminal or you
can't go up to a custodian and say
without giving a reason
without telling you who I am I have
access to this record
there are still particularly situated
individuals or institutions that can get
access to these records and I know that
a lot of folks on the call are
journalists or investigators or
researchers and so the reason I want to
highlight this is because even if a even
if a record is not publicly accessible
that doesn't mean that no one can get it
and there are still legal means of
potentially getting access to that
information where should you look for
this you should look for this in the
appendix to rule five for special access
provisions and again here are a couple
examples
um often there are examples of
particular types of disclosures for
research purposes or individuals who
maybe submitted the information
themselves but if even if a record is
not publicly accessible if
you can contact or uh
speak to someone who falls under one of
these special access provisions and they
are willing to share the record that's
another way that you can potentially get
access to some of this information and
some of this information that might find
its way into the public domain
all right I also want to talk really
quickly just about stealing records so
ceiling records are uh a way that
records be may start out as
presumptively publicly accessible but in
the course of a case may turn out to be
withheld from public view or public
inspection these are governed by rule
nine and the way that it works is a
party can request ceiling or the court
can look at a record or a case document
and say you know on the Court's own
motion I think that this information is
too sensitive to be made public
any
ceiling request has to articulate a very
specific set of Demands that are listed
here this is in rule 983 they have to
identify the particular filing
particular record and the portion that
they want to see they want to withhold
from Public Access like to identify the
particular privacy interests that are
going to be served by withholding This
Record
they to State any Authority that
supports an order for ceiling or
redaction so they have to show that it's
not just they have a particular interest
in this information but there's actually
some Authority for with holding this
type of information from the public and
they have to attach redacted and
unredacted copies of the records to show
the court what redaction might look like
and crucially they have to confirm that
service has been made on all parties or
any other individual or entity uh who's
the subject of the information you can
paint in that and the reason for this is
because we want to know we want to make
sure that as many people as possible
know if a record is going to become
sealed
if a record is going to become sealed
either because of a party's request or
on a Court's own motion any person
including a non-party to the case can
request a hearing on that ceiling any
hearing on the motion has to be open to
the public except that the person can
request that the court conduct some of
the sensitive review of the documents in
camera which just means essentially
behind closed doors if it needs to look
at the information to determine whether
or not this is the type of information
that should be withheld but the moving
party that is either the court or the
person requested ceiling as the burden
by clear and convincing evidence to show
that this information should not be
publicly released the court has to
actually find go ahead and enter a
finding by clear and convincing evidence
that good cause and exceptional
circumstances exist
and if anyone publicly objects to that
stealing the court has to essentially do
another step and that's to say not just
that there's parent convincing evidence
on the record or in writing but say no
reasonable alternative to the ceiling or
redaction exists and the manner of the
redactions or the manner of the ceiling
is the least restrictive means possible
so it's essentially a minimization
principle
um there are lower burdens if both the
parties say you know what court we agree
that this information is sensitive
enough that we want to seal it and
nobody objects but the good news is that
even if if you weren't present for that
uh
stipulated decision there are still
opportunities to go back after the fact
and unseal those records
right so Hillary and I have talked up to
this point about the rules about how
things are supposed to work
what are ways that you can seek relief
if you think that these rules aren't
being followed in some way if you think
that you should have access to a record
that either a custodian or a court has
told you you can't get access to or you
want to attend a proceeding that you
think should be public but for one
reason or another it's closed we're
going to start with how to access the
actual proceedings themselves and I'm
going to briefly turn it back over to
Hillary
thanks Harry go to the next slide
so first talking about how do I
challenge a limit on access to attending
a hearing now as we discussed there is
an extremely high bar for the courts to
actually close the court and prior
restraint or so-called gag orders which
are limits on what can be published
about a proceeding are presumptively
unconstitutional and another high bar to
clear in order to be issued uh but if
the court has been closed or accessed
somehow denied to the public the media
especially does have standing or the
judicial right you know to take action
to challenge a limit to that kind of
access they can by what's called a
motion to intervene or directly
intervene at the trial court level and
the Vermont Supreme Court has held that
once the media intervenes at the trial
court level they then are able if they
get an unsatisfactory decision to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Vermont and
there's also an option to petition for
Extraordinary relief with the Supreme
Court it directly under Vermont rules of
Appellate Procedure 21 which covers
extraordinary relief in more detail and
the Supreme Court of Vermont explicitly
has stated that orders limiting access
should be narrowly tailored to cover
only improper disclosure that would
occur in the absence of the order and in
the past these kinds of media
interventions or asserting rights have
been successful in one case a gag order
was rescinded when media petitioned the
court the trial court had held that a
newspaper couldn't print information
that it already had in its possession
and the court ultimately reversed and
held that these orders have to be
narrowly tailored
um and it was not done so in this case
so there is the possibility even you
know in these worst case scenarios when
these kinds of orders are issued there's
the potential to have that kind of
decision reversed back to Harry
all right what happens if you are
seeking access to a record that you've
been denied and you think you should
have access to it
there are actually two ways to go about
getting access to restricted record and
the route that you're you want to take
depends a little bit on why the record
has been withheld and who withheld it so
the first question you want to ask is
this is this the kind of record that a
judge has previously ruled that for
whatever reason
shouldn't be public and so has there
been a ruling essentially in the course
of the case that means that this record
is is not public
if that's the case you want to file a
motion with the court in that case under
rule 9C
so what rule 9 says is that any person
including a non-party so this is someone
who's like an intervener like the folks
that Hillary just talked about can move
to access a record not publicly
accessible you just file a motion and
the motion has to specify the case you
have to say I I want this record in this
particular proceeding uh and you have to
say
essentially why you think you're
entitled to access and the Court's going
to go ahead and make a ruling on that as
soon as it possibly can there's a
special provision in rule 9 that says
the court has to essentially treat these
requests uh with special speed and has
to turn to them as soon as it can
if the court revisits this and says you
know what I'm going to stand by my
prioritization and we're going to keep
it we're going to keep it sealed uh you
have to request permission from the
court to appeal that to the Supreme
Court of Vermont the reason that you
have to request permission is because
usually the Supreme Court only hears uh
appeals at the end of cases when you
have a ruling that is going on in the
middle of an ongoing case like this
would be you usually need special
permission to take it up on
interlocutory appeal but you do have to
get permission from the trial court to
take that to the Supreme Court
once it's at the Supreme sorry uh if
it's actually sealed at the Supreme
Court level that is the Supreme Court is
the one that has decided that this case
should not be public you file a motion
under the Vermont rule of Appellate
Procedure 27 which basically just says
you file this like a motion like any
party in a case would that would be a
motion for
extended Pages a motion to extend time
um and so you should consult Vermont
rule of Appellate Procedure or the form
and the format of asking the Vermont
Supreme Court to unseal a record that
it's already deemed should not be
accessible to the public
it's important to note that this this
route a motion in a case under 9C is
only appropriate where there's some
discretion that is where the court
essentially has a decision to make about
whether or not a record should be
withheld in a case in which you have
either statute or a clear rule that says
all of these records regardless of the
Privacy interests regardless of the
proceeding are just categorically exempt
this isn't the right proceeding uh in
that case you essentially want to fight
with a custodian about whether or not
this is the kind of record that falls
within one of those rules that's what
I'm going to talk about next
so in a case in which you have sought
records not in the course of an ongoing
proceeding essentially from the court
feeling it but you've gone to a clerk's
office you've gone to a public access
terminal and you've requested particular
records and they've been denied this is
a separate procedure and this is an
appeal under rule 6h and because this
isn't in the context of an ongoing case
in which a judge is making a decision
about the records it looks a lot more
like a public records request uh and so
if the records custodian denies you the
record either in whole or Dax part of it
they essentially have to follow the same
time limits as the public records act
which is typically three business days
for a response or if there are
extraordinary circumstances they can
invoke an extension up to 10 days
if you're denied
a part of that record
you have
seven days to appeal that to the
presiding judge of the court in which
the case was filed we talked about this
a little bit during our last
presentation that's a really important
uh distinction because often you can
access public records from multiple
court houses or even online but if you
want to appeal the denial of a record
you have to go to the presiding judge of
the court in which the case was filed so
it's really important to note sort of
where the record originated uh if the
custodian the clerk's office for example
denies part of your request they're
required to tell you about the procedure
for appealing essentially how to do it
in your time limits
um if you take that to
the presiding judge of the court in
which the case is filed and you're still
dissatisfied with that judge's decision
about the record then you have 30 days
to appeal it to the Supreme Court of
Vermont we talked about this a little
bit last week or not last week but in
the last session I'm just reiterating it
here because it's exactly the same Harry
and Hillary thank you so much for giving
us this great overview
of the courts in Vermont and um and
thanks everybody for tuning in as well
thanks very much happy to be here
関連動画をさらに表示
Vermont: Introduction to State Courts
Rule 130; Rules of Admissibility; REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE [AUDIO CODAL]
Recording of Evidence Part 02
SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA INDONESIA (Criminal Justice System)
Season 2 Episode 1 (Bridging the Civil Justice Gap; Self-Represented Litigants)
Dr. Beniharmoni Harefa S.H., LL.M - HUKUM ACARA PIDANA
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)