recognizing that “courts retain supervisory powers over their records and documents”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “courts retain supervisory powers over their records and documents”
- recognizing that right to examine public judicial documents is not absolute
- “[T]he right to examine public judicial documents is not absolute, and courts retain supervisory power over their records and documents.”
- "As the court did not develop its reasoning with regard to [its exercise of discretion] in its Rule 1925(a
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice FITZGERALD
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that providing the media with copies of evidence for public dissemination during trial court proceedings can severely undermine the integrity of a criminal trial. I would affirm the Superior Court’s holding reversing the trial court’s order in this case, especially because the audiotape was never entered into evidence or otherwise filed with the court and made part of the record, despite the fact that it was played during the preliminary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Upshur, 882 A.2d 499, 503 (Pa.Super.2005). Although I do not oppose release of a transcript of the tape, I do not view the tape itself as a “public judicial record” subject to public access under the circumstances.