## Facts

- John J. Connolly, Jr., a former FBI agent, was prosecuted in federal court in Massachusetts for crimes connected to his relationships with organized crime informants.
- Connolly told the court he could no longer afford retained counsel and sought partial assistance under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
- To support his request, Connolly submitted financial affidavits and a document summarizing total legal debt, containing detailed personal and family financial information.
- At Connolly’s request, the district court granted CJA assistance and sealed the financial submissions.
- After Connolly’s conviction (racketeering and obstruction of justice), the Boston Herald intervened and moved to unseal the CJA eligibility materials, asserting a First Amendment and common-law right of access.
- A magistrate judge allowed intervention but denied unsealing; the district court affirmed.
- The Boston Herald sought review in the First Circuit via interlocutory appeal and a mandamus petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment provides the public and press a right of access to a defendant’s CJA financial eligibility submissions.
2. Whether federal common law provides a presumptive right of access to those materials and, if so, whether continued sealing was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether mandamus or interlocutory appellate review should compel unsealing.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the order keeping the CJA financial eligibility submissions sealed and denied mandamus.
- The court held there is no First Amendment right of access to this narrow class of documents.
- The court held there is no common-law right of access to these materials; alternatively, any qualified presumption was overcome and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
- The court concluded that privacy interests and the effective operation of the CJA eligibility process justified continued sealing.

## Legal Principles

- First Amendment access to judicial records is assessed under the “experience and logic” test: historical openness and the functional value of public access.
- CJA financial eligibility submissions lack a tradition of public access and are commonly handled ex parte or through nonpublic written filings.
- Public access to CJA eligibility materials may deter defendants from seeking appointed counsel or from providing complete and truthful financial information, harming the administration of the CJA.
- The common-law presumption of access to judicial records is qualified and varies with the document’s role; ancillary administrative filings may receive weaker access treatment than merits-related materials.
- Strong privacy interests in detailed financial information (including information about nonparty family members) can outweigh any qualified common-law presumption of access.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that sealed financial documents submitted to establish eligibility for CJA-funded counsel are not subject to a First Amendment or common-law right of access, and that maintaining the seal was justified by privacy and the need to preserve accurate, effective CJA eligibility determinations.


In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2003)