The Diocese of Bridgeport is seeking to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep documents pertaining to sexual abuse cases sealed. Diocesan officials on Friday asked the state Supreme Court to continue a stay against releasing the documents until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to take up their appeal. The documents were scheduled to be unsealed as early as Monday. The state court ruled that more than 12,000 pages of documents from more than 20 lawsuits against priests should be released. Those documents have been sealed from public view since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. The diocese has questioned the impartiality of the trial judge in the case, who was on committee aimed at providing more access to court records.
The Diocese's statement says, "There are constitutional rights and privacy issues of great concern for all citizens that we wish the U.S. Supreme Court to review and decide." The first major issue surrounds what the Diocese says is an unconstitutional interpretation of the "judicial document" doctrine. Under this doctrine, the state Supreme Court has decided to treat all court documents as public information. According to the Diocese, however, only documents that shed light on the judicial decision making process fall under this doctrine. Since these cases were settled out of court, releasing the papers does not shed light on the judicial decision making process and so should remain private documents, according to the argument of the Diocese. As the Diocese's motion says, the doctrine is "to allow the public to monitor judicial performance. This doctrine is not, and never has been, intended as a constitutional or common law right to gather information for investigative journalism into the activities of private litigants." According to the motion, the Diocese says the issue of "judicial documents" is one that has "divided courts across the country."
A second issue revolves around First Amendment rights.
For the Diocese's motion and additional information click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment