## Facts

- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida used a dual criminal docketing system: a public docket and a separate sealed docket whose existence and entries were not contemporaneously reflected on the public docket.
- A federal grand jury indicted John Valenti (assistant state attorney) and Charles Corces (criminal defense lawyer) on conspiracy, extortion, and bribery charges involving alleged efforts to secure favorable treatment for criminal defendants in state prosecutions.
- Before trial, the district court conducted numerous pretrial matters through in camera or ex parte proceedings (including motions, bench conferences, continuances, and testimony) and placed associated filings and records on the sealed docket.
- The court did not provide advance public notice that closure would be considered and did not make contemporaneous, public, case-specific findings justifying closure or sealing.
- Times Publishing Company (publisher of the St. Petersburg Times) sought to intervene to obtain access to transcripts and documents, to require future proceedings to be open absent constitutionally sufficient findings, and to end the dual docket practice through mandamus.
- The district court denied broader access and continued maintaining entries on the sealed docket, prompting the Times to appeal and petition for mandamus.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment right of access was violated by closing and sealing multiple pretrial proceedings and related records without notice, an opportunity to be heard, and specific on-the-record findings.
2. Whether a dual criminal docketing system that conceals the existence of sealed proceedings and entries from the public docket is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
3. Whether the court of appeals had appellate jurisdiction and/or mandamus authority to review and remedy both the specific access denials and the dual docket practice.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held the Middle District of Florida’s sealed dual criminal docket system unconstitutional because it concealed the existence of judicial proceedings and orders and prevented meaningful access challenges.
- The court concluded that the closures and sealings in the prosecution were not implemented in a manner consistent with First Amendment requirements, given the absence of public notice and contemporaneous, specific findings.
- The court directed the district court to reform its practices so that docketing provides sufficient public notice of sealed matters to permit challenges to closure and sealing.
- The court granted relief to the Times to the extent consistent with protecting compelling interests through narrowly tailored measures.
- The court determined it had authority to address the access issues, including through mandamus where appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal proceedings and related judicial records are presumptively open under the First Amendment when history and function support openness.
- Closure or sealing is permissible only upon an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, with measures no broader than necessary and with consideration of reasonable alternatives.
- Courts must make specific, on-the-record findings supporting closure or sealing, sufficient to permit appellate review and public assessment.
- The public and press must receive notice that closure is being considered and an opportunity to be heard.
- Docket information is a necessary component of meaningful access; a system that hides the existence of proceedings or orders defeats the ability to invoke and litigate access rights.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that criminal docketing practices cannot conceal entire categories of proceedings from public view and that any closure or sealing must follow First Amendment procedures requiring notice, an opportunity to object, narrow tailoring, and specific findings placed on the record.


United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708 (11th Cir. 1993)