## Facts

- Shortly before Barry D. Loukaitis turned 15, he shot and killed a teacher and two classmates and seriously wounded another student at a junior high school in Washington.
- The State charged Loukaitis in juvenile court with three counts of aggravated first-degree murder and one count of first-degree assault.
- Washington law allowed certain juveniles to be prosecuted as adults, but required the juvenile court to conduct declination proceedings to decide whether to keep juvenile jurisdiction or decline it so the case could proceed in criminal court.
- The difference in potential consequences was substantial: juvenile jurisdiction generally ended when the juvenile turned 21, while adult prosecution exposed Loukaitis to a possible sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
- A declination hearing began. Loukaitis called a psychiatrist (Dr. Julia Moore) to testify based on her examination of him and her opinions about his mental condition.
- Before the psychiatrist gave substantive testimony about the examination and her mental-health opinions, Loukaitis moved to close the hearing to the public for that testimony and to seal the record, arguing that open proceedings would harm his right to a fair trial and involve confidential juvenile materials.
- The State, the press, and members of the public objected, asserting a constitutional right of access to the declination proceeding.
- The juvenile court granted closure but did not make specific findings explaining how an open hearing would prejudice Loukaitis’s fair-trial rights or why narrower measures would not work.
- The State and a news publisher sought discretionary review. The Court of Appeals accepted review and stayed the declination proceedings pending its decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile declination hearing (including psychiatric testimony offered to support retention of juvenile jurisdiction) is subject to a qualified constitutional right of public access.
2. Whether the trial court may close the declination hearing based on general fair-trial and confidentiality concerns without making specific, reviewable findings and without showing that narrower alternatives are inadequate.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the closure order.
- The court held that a qualified public right of access applies to this type of declination proceeding, and closure cannot rest on broad, generalized conclusions about possible prejudice.
- The court ruled that the trial court’s explanation did not satisfy the required on-the-record analysis because it did not show, with case-specific detail, a serious threat to a protected interest that necessitated closure, nor did it properly address less restrictive options.

## Legal Principles

- A qualified First Amendment right of access applies to proceedings that function like preliminary criminal proceedings; when that right applies, closure is permitted only in limited circumstances.
- To close a proceeding, the trial court must make specific, on-the-record findings that clearly show the need for closure and allow meaningful appellate review.
- Washington’s closure analysis (from *Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa*) requires the court to identify the interest asserted, assess the threatened harm, weigh competing interests, and consider whether reasonable alternatives to closure can protect the asserted interest.
- A defendant’s right to a fair trial can justify restrictions, but speculation or generalized concern about publicity is not enough; the court must explain concretely why openness creates a real risk and why alternatives (such as partial closure, limiting the scope of testimony in public, redaction, delayed release, or sealing discrete exhibits) will not protect the defendant.
- The fact that juvenile “social file” materials or mental-health information may be confidential does not automatically permit closing the courtroom; confidentiality concerns must be handled through a tailored order supported by specific findings.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s order closing and sealing the psychiatrist’s testimony at Loukaitis’s declination hearing because the trial court relied on general fair-trial and confidentiality concerns rather than specific findings showing that closure was necessary and that narrower options would not adequately protect the interests at stake.


State v. Loukaitis, 918 P. 2d 535 (1996)