FAC leads Amicus brief urging CA Supreme Ct to require public access in commitment hearings

FAC leads Amicus brief in CA Supreme Ct. case deciding public access to mental competency hearingsWhen a county tries to commit a person, against his will, to a psychiatric facility, may that judicial proceeding–which involves lawyers, a judge and a jury trial—be held behind closed doors, with no access at all for the press and public? A California appellate court recently held that such proceedings not only may be secret, but must be secret.

The First Amendment Coalition has organized an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case and overturn the appellate court decision. Joining FAC on the brief in Sorenson v. Superior Court, H038295, are the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Times, The Center for Investigative Reporting and The McClatchy Company. The brief, prepared by lawyers Duffy Carolan and Jonathan Segal at Davis Wright Tremaine, was filed in support of the Monterey Herald’s petition to the Supreme Court.

The case centers on a 30-year-old Monterey County man, Christopher Sorenson, who had two trials in 2011 to determine if he was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others. Both juries failed to find enough evidence to have him involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward.  Eight days after the second trial, Sorenson’s 71-year-old mother was found beaten to death. Sorenson was arrested for murder.

Prosecutors preparing for Sorenson’s murder trial and the Monterey County Herald petitioned Monterey County Superior Court Judge Mark Hood to open the files in the Sorenson commitment proceeding.  Hood allowed the newspapers and prosecutors to have access to the transcripts, but not other documents.

In September, the  Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court, ruling broadly not only that the transcripts must remain sealed, but that hearings in all involuntary commitment proceedings must be closed.  The DA’s office and the Monterey Herald separately filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to decide the question of public access.

The FAC amicus brief argues that the Appeals court relied on a faulty understanding of the law when it ruled that all LPS proceedings must be closed.

“More than two decades ago, this Court observed that “[h]istory is haunted by the accusing cries of those locked away ‘for their own good. It would be a small solace to a person wrongly judged mentally incompetent that his road to commitment was paved with good intentions,” Carolan writes.

Peter Scheer, FAC’s executive director, said: “Our view is that the first amendment commands that these proceedings be open to the public in order to assure that persons committed involuntarily have the benefit of a fair, thorough and medically competent process.”

“The Constitution requires public hearings in criminal cases,” Scheer noted. “The need for  public scrutiny is even greater when the subject of a judicial proceeding may be locked up, not because he has committed a crime, but because he is mentally ill.”

Sept. 4, 2013 “Court denies appeal to open mental health hearings,” by Julia Reynolds, Monterey County Herald

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Sept. 5, 2013 “C.A. Overturns Order for Release of Commitment Trial Transcripts,by Kenneth Ofgang, Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

[gview file=”https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sorenson-Amici-Letter.pdf”]