In re Boston Herald
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
321 F.3d 174 (2003)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
John Connolly Jr. (defendant) was a former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who had been criminally charged for misconduct relating to his relationships with famous organized-crime informants. During the criminal proceedings, Connolly made a request under the 1964 Criminal Justice Act (CJA) for public funds to help him pay for a defense attorney. This request contained information from Connolly showing his financial need and eligibility, including the debt Connolly already owed to his prior attorney, his assets and other debts, and his family’s assets and debts. The court granted Connolly’s CJA request to help pay for his continued defense and publicly appointed an attorney for Connolly. At Connolly’s request, the court also placed Connolly’s financial information under seal. After Connolly was convicted, the Boston Herald, Inc. (plaintiff), a newspaper, moved to have Connolly’s financial information unsealed. A magistrate and a district court judge each denied the request to unseal the information. The Boston Herald asked the First Circuit to unseal the information, claiming that the public had a First Amendment right of access to a criminal defendant’s CJA eligibility filings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
Dissent (Lipez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.