Legal Opinion
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided April 27, 1988No. Civ. A. 87-2140-TPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
TAURO, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, the Globe Newspaper Company and two Boston Globe reporters, Gerard M. O’Neill and Diego Ribadeneira, have challenged the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute that limits their access to criminal trial records.
I
The challenged statute, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 276, § 100C, 1 among other things, seals the records of any criminal case in which the defendant has been found not guilty. The statute is intended to protect the reputations and privacy of acquitted criminal defendants. It accomplishes this goal by "protect{ing] individuals from unnecessary and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of NorfolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of RiversideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Globe Newspaper Company v. Daniel F. Pokaski, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- In Re Worrell Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1992
- United States v. MartinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1988
- Attorney General v. District Attorney for the Plymouth DistrictMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2020