## Facts

- Joseph Salim Chagra, an El Paso attorney, was indicted for conspiracy to murder a federal judge and related offenses amid intense national and local media coverage.
- Bail was set at $1,500,000 in the murder case and $100,000 in a related tax case.
- Chagra moved to reduce bail and requested an in camera hearing, arguing further publicity would threaten his right to a fair trial.
- A magistrate began the bail-reduction hearing in open court but closed a portion over press objection and sealed the transcript of that closed portion because the evidence discussed was deemed likely to prejudice Chagra’s fair-trial rights if publicized.
- Two newspapers and a reporter moved to unseal the transcript, asserting a First Amendment right of access to the hearing and record.
- The district court denied the motion, finding a serious risk of unfair-trial prejudice and concluding alternatives (e.g., voir dire, continuance, change of venue) were insufficient.
- While the appeal was pending, Chagra pleaded guilty, but the press appellants continued to seek access to the sealed hearing record.

## Issues

1. Whether the press had standing and whether the access/closure order was immediately appealable.
2. Whether the appeal became moot after the defendant pleaded guilty.
3. Whether the First Amendment provides a right of public and press access to a pretrial bail-reduction hearing and its transcript.
4. If such a right exists, what findings are required to justify closure and sealing to protect the defendant’s Sixth Amendment fair-trial rights.

## Decision

- The court held the press had standing and that denial of access to a criminal proceeding and its transcript was immediately reviewable.
- The court held the case was not moot despite the guilty plea because the sealing order continued to restrict access and the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The court recognized a qualified First Amendment right of access to pretrial bail-reduction hearings.
- The court affirmed the district court’s partial closure and sealing order because the record supported specific findings of likely prejudice, the lack of adequate alternatives, and narrow tailoring.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment provides a qualified right of public and press access to certain pretrial criminal proceedings, including bail-reduction hearings.
- Closure of an otherwise open pretrial proceeding is permissible only upon specific findings that:
  - there is a substantial probability that openness would prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial;
  - reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect that right; and
  - the closure and any sealing are narrowly tailored in scope and duration to protect the fair-trial interest.
- Press entities may challenge closure orders, and access denials are subject to immediate appellate review when delayed review would effectively defeat the claimed First Amendment right.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that bail-reduction hearings are presumptively open under the First Amendment, but affirmed a limited closure and sealed transcript where the district court made supported findings that publicity from the closed evidence posed a substantial risk to fair-trial rights and that less restrictive measures would not adequately prevent that harm.


United States v. Chagra, 701 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1983)