rule and openness exception in California

2007(See Times Mirror Co. v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1989) 873 F.2d 1210 , 1219; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski (1st Cir. 1989) 868 F.2d 497, 509-510 .) “ ‘[G]rand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, permitted only when specifically authorized by statute.’ ” (Daily Journal Corp., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1126.) Despite the qualified right of access under section 938.1, “[t]ran-scripts of grand jury testimony, unlike testimony before a court in pretrial proceedings, are not public records.” (Daily Journal Corp., supra, at p. 1132.) By enacting section 938.1 and its progenitor, former section

2007(See Times Mirror Co. v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1989) 873 F.2d 1210 , 1219; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski (1st Cir. 1989) 868 F.2d 497, 509-510 .) “ ‘[G]rand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, permitted only when specifically authorized by statute.’ ” (Daily Journal Corp., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1126.) Despite the qualified right of access under section 938.1, “[t]ran-scripts of grand jury testimony, unlike testimony before a court in pretrial proceedings, are not public records.” (Daily Journal Corp., supra, at p. 1132.) By enacting section 938.1 and its progenitor, former section

2004Our Supreme Court has emphatically determined that “grand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, *418 permitted only when specifically authorized by statute.” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1180 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ]; and see Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 1125-1126 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 , 979 P.2d 982 ].) In view of the generally secret nature of the proceedings the admonition is designed to protect and considering that it is not directed to the Mercury but to the witnesses who have not chosen to chall

2004Our Supreme Court has emphatically determined that “grand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, *418 permitted only when specifically authorized by statute.” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1180 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ]; and see Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 1125-1126 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 , 979 P.2d 982 ].) In view of the generally secret nature of the proceedings the admonition is designed to protect and considering that it is not directed to the Mercury but to the witnesses who have not chosen to chall

2003Section 827 and California Rules of Court, 3 rule 1423, which control the dissemination of confidential juvenile records, reflect a determination by the Legislature that the juvenile court has both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records.” (Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 827 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ]; In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 229 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) Section 827 permits only certain identified categories of individuals to inspect juvenile records without prior leave of the juvenile court.

2003Section 827 and California Rules of Court, 3 rule 1423, which control the dissemination of confidential juvenile records, reflect a determination by the Legislature that the juvenile court has both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records.” (Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 827 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ]; In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 229 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) Section 827 permits only certain identified categories of individuals to inspect juvenile records without prior leave of the juvenile court.

2003Section 827 and California Rules of Court, 3 rule 1423, which control the dissemination of confidential juvenile records, reflect a determination by the Legislature that the juvenile court has both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records.” (Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 827 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ]; In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 229 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) Section 827 permits only certain identified categories of individuals to inspect juvenile records without prior leave of the juvenile court.

2003Section 827 and California Rules of Court, 3 rule 1423, which control the dissemination of confidential juvenile records, reflect a determination by the Legislature that the juvenile court has both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records.” (Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 827 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ]; In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 229 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) Section 827 permits only certain identified categories of individuals to inspect juvenile records without prior leave of the juvenile court.

2003(See, e.g., Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 1124-1126, 1128-1129 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 , 979 P.2d 982 ] (Daily Journal) [there is a “ 1 “strong historic policy of preserving grand jury secrecy” ’ ”]; McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 1174-1175, 1180 [“[G]rand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, permitted only when specifically authorized by statute”]; People v. Superior Court (Mouchaourab) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 415-416 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 ] [grand jury process must be kept confidential].) 2 Discussion I.

2003(See, e.g., Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 1124-1126, 1128-1129 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 , 979 P.2d 982 ] (Daily Journal) [there is a “ 1 “strong historic policy of preserving grand jury secrecy” ’ ”]; McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 1174-1175, 1180 [“[G]rand jury secrecy is the rule and openness the exception, permitted only when specifically authorized by statute”]; People v. Superior Court (Mouchaourab) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403, 415-416 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 829 ] [grand jury process must be kept confidential].) 2 Discussion I.