Skip to content

Breaking News

Editorial: Connecticut is holding court behind closed doors. This is the wrong move for juvenile justice.

In this Feb. 24, 2016, file photo, Michael Skakel leaves the Connecticut Supreme Court after a hearing in Hartford, Conn. The state Supreme Court in May 2018 vacated Skakel's conviction in the bludgeoning death of Martha Moxley in their wealthy Greenwich neighborhood in 1975 when they were teenagers. A new Connecticut law would completely seal his case file.
Jessica Hill/AP
In this Feb. 24, 2016, file photo, Michael Skakel leaves the Connecticut Supreme Court after a hearing in Hartford, Conn. The state Supreme Court in May 2018 vacated Skakel’s conviction in the bludgeoning death of Martha Moxley in their wealthy Greenwich neighborhood in 1975 when they were teenagers. A new Connecticut law would completely seal his case file.
Author

The start of October saw a host of new laws take effect in Connecticut. Minimum wage increases and the now-revised prepared food tax have garnered the gamut of attention in recent weeks. But a change in the juvenile justice system — potentially undermining the rights established in both the U.S. Constitution and Connecticut’s — has made its way into law without much question, let alone opposition.

Public Act 19-187 — passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in the final hours on the last day of the General Assembly’s 2019 session — mandates that Connecticut courtroom proceedings and records for juvenile felony cases tried in adult court will be closed to the public and press, unless and until a guilty plea or verdict is entered.

In other words, the public will not have access to the trial of anyone under 18 who is accused of committing a crime serious enough to land them in adult court — such as murder or rape. The machinations of justice will be secret. That’s not good for the accused, the victims or the public.

Advocates for this change say that this is necessary to protect those whose cases are transferred to adult court but end up being pushed back to juvenile court. That’s a fair intention, which is probably why it’s supported by the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee.

But this reform fails to acknowledge the potential for the public to play a crucial role in court proceedings, often acting as the juvenile’s strongest advocate.

Consider the case of Peter Reilly. In September 1973, Barbara Gibbons of Litchfield County was found brutally beaten and murdered. After an eight-hour interrogation by state police — with no lawyer present — Gibbons’ 18-year-old son, Peter Reilly, confessed to “battering, stomping on, repeatedly stabbing, raping and nearly decapitating” his mother. There was no evidence presented in court besides his confession. In fact, all evidence appeared to prove Reilly’s innocence. Yet, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to jail.

Friends, family and Litchfield County neighbors took to Peter Reilly’s defense. Local reporting garnered national attention. Eventually, the police department was condemned and Reilly released.

If it weren’t for consistent media coverage and the public’s interest in following the case, Mr. Reilly wouldn’t have been exonerated of this coerced confession.

A similar outcome was reached even more recently in the cases of Sean Henning and Ralph Birch, who were convicted for murder in 1989, but had their convictions thrown out after forensic scientist Henry Lee’s work on the case came into question. Thanks to DNA testing conducted decades later and court transcripts that were publicly available, it became clear that laboratory results didn’t match up with Lee’s testimony in 1989. Again, open courts and unsealed files played a significant role in the pursuit of justice.

This law also retroactively seals 116 pending cases — and potential cases in the future, including that of Michael Skakel, who was ordered to stand trial in adult court at the age of 40 despite being accused of committing murder at 15. Mr. Skakel argued to be tried in juvenile court, where the proceedings would have been secret, despite the gravity of the accusation. Today, under this law, he’s granted his wish of secrecy, and his records are now sealed.

Does a public trial guarantee that the wrongfully accused won’t end up being wrongfully convicted? Of course not. And yes, without this revision, the identity of these teens will be publicly available. But while keeping one’s identity concealed may sound appealing at first thought, the risk that comes with it is being declared guilty in a secret trial, with the public unable to speak on the accused’s behalf.

Courtrooms are a place for the guilty to be held accountable, and the public has a right to witness the process. Allowing the public access to legal proceedings in open court is necessary to evaluate prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and law enforcement. Juveniles in those courtrooms deserve better than a policy of secrecy disguised as a justice reform. Open courts protect them.

This law must be repealed to restore transparency to the justice systems and uphold the Constitution’s promise of public trials for both the public and the defendants.