WPCc ydzO?x§I9z9>דKKg8D;j!);Va1<;dsf}'HNVM~OjEu @ &-:MBy#(۵EãmWzó6LX_ZQ_:"{S{ ,)Fs (kDW QOB&biluTp"Ϫr52&?JZ-ѝUI(,y.F̀p|@R4/쿖GB`S]}c7vH OY;r=0 Hw붦KH'ʼwuk[d-P~%xv7׿sm[Nyz{\Vfԏ́Ͻ#IfIN1hUc 8u )k #P UN %_ 0:e UN UF U >3 U@q ^ w 4   m N U 0 0/UB 0EWbg?.#D#5'U8)N* 0V*q*L/ 0Vb/b/f/a///////////X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2X2`2`2`2 Ak{555<nC4DF NXW\Ebbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Cb Cc C1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c1c CKcKcKc CecHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular\( 9Z+&Courier Regular(`  Z(CG Times Regulard.s u-\( ?,}backup3|xLU<\( 9Z+Courier (wG2$ !USUS.,    = dd=  B  0  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(A$  16  - -  $USUS.,  =sdd=    5    _=sdd= ` XZXThedissentsuggestsglossingoverthereviewof  traditionwhenexamining"proceedingsofrecentorigin."Wedonot  thinkwearefree,underPressEnterpriseII,tosimplyignore \ tradition.Analogieswillfrequentlyproveusefulreasoningtools 2 whichlawyersarewelltrainedtoemploy.SeegenerallyC.R. X Sunstein,OnAnalogicalReasoning,106Harv.L.Rev.741(1993). . Whiletheabsenceofanalogoustraditionmightnotdoomaclaim   wherethefunctionalargumentforaccesstoatypeofjudicial   documentisstrong,thisisnotsuchacase. ] $USUS.,  =sdd=    2    _=sdd= ` XZXThedetailsofthatprovisionhavesincebeenamended  twice.SeePub.L.No.106113,Apx.A,308(a)(1999);Pub.L.  No.105119,308(1997).Neitheramendmentaffectedthesilence \ concerningCJAeligibilitydocuments.  $USUS.,  =sdd=    4    _=sdd= ` XZXGiventhecongressionalamendmentsnotedearlier,this  typeof"barebonesdata"isnowindependentlysubjecttodisclosure  understatute. Eventhere,however,thejudgeusesdiscretionto \ considerasetofspecifiedfactorsandredactcertaininformation 2 accordingly.See18U.S.C.3006A(d)(4)(D).  $USUS.,  =sdd=    6    _=sdd= ` XZXWecanimaginesituationswhereadefendant'seligibility  forCJAfundingmightariseinthecoreofcriminalproceedings,  suchasinanappealchallengingthedenialofaidonSixth \ Amendmentgrounds.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Manning,79F.3d 2 212,21819(1stCir.1996)(reviewingdistrictcourtdenialof X expertservicesfortrialunderCJA).Thosescenariosarefar . removedfromthecasebeforeusthedefendantisinadifferent   postureandtheinterestsinvolvedaredifferentandwedonot   considerthemhere.  5 $USUS.,  =sdd=    7    _=dd= ` XZXOnceaFirstAmendmentrightattaches,duringthenext  stage,whenthecourtdecideswhetherthequalifiedrightis  overcome,itconsidersfactorsrelevanttoaparticularcase.See, \ e.g.,_Pokaski_,868F.2dat506&n.17(discussinghowsome 2 individualdefendantsmaydemonstratecircumstancesparticularto X theircaserequiringthesealingofrecordsthatareotherwise . coveredbyqualifiedFirstAmendmentrightofaccess).Wedonot   relyonfactorswhichareatypicalofaprocesswhenconsidering   whethertherightattachestothatprocessingeneral.For `  example,Connollynotesthathis_CJA_Ԁformsincludetheamountof 6   certainfamilymedicalbills;thisisidiosyncratictohiscaseand  \  wouldbeaninappropriatebasisfordeterminingtheapplicability  2  oftherightasawhole.Thebroaderprivacyconcernswe   articulateinthetext,however,wouldbecommontomost_CJA_   applicants.    $USUS.,  =sdd=    1    _=sdd= ` XZXThejudgesoftheDistrictofMassachusettshaveadopted  alocalCJAplanwhichlookstotheA.O.Guideasbinding.See18  U.S.C.3006A(a)(requiringeachdistrictcourttoadoptplan); \ UnitedStatesDist.CourtfortheDist.ofMass.,Planfor 2 ImplementingtheCriminalJusticeActof1964,AsAmended,18 X U.S.C.3006A,IX.B(1993)(statingthatjudicialofficersin . theDistrictofMassachusetts"shallcomplywiththeprovisions"of   theA.O.GuideconcerningimplementationoftheCJA).     $USUS.,  =sdd=    8    _=sdd= ` XZXThedissentnotesthatindigentcriminaldefendantswill  havelittlechoicebuttoacceptthelossofprivacyinexchange  forCJAfunds;thisobservationmakesthecaseagainstdisclosure \ stronger,notweaker.Thelawdoesnotforcecriminaldefendants 2 tomakesuchaHobson'schoice.< 9Z+ Courier New (.3$ !USUS.,    $USUS.,  =sdd=    3    _=sdd= ` XZXAtthefederallevel,therehavealsobeensuggestionsof  adiminishedroleforjudgesintheadministrationoftheCJA.  See,e.g.,Gonzales,150F.3dat1255n.11("Wenotethatthereis \ muchsupportforthereplacementof[federal]judgeswithan 2 independentadministrativeboard....");J.J.Cleary,Federal X DefenderSystems,Law&Contemp.Probs.,Winter1995,at65,6975 . (arguingforindependentstructuretoadministerCJA).ButseeVII   A.O.Guide2.03(A)("Thedeterminationofeligibilityunderthe   CriminalJusticeActisajudicialfunctiontobeperformedbya `  federaljudgeormagistrateaftermakingappropriateinquiries 6   concerningtheperson'sfinancialcondition.").  (.3$ !USUS.,  - -TABLE A 24 ' Turner0Turner .      $USUS.,  =sdd=    13    _=sdd= ` XZXInSuarez,theintervenorsonlypetitionedforaccessto  attorneypaymentinformation,anddidnotseektounsealthe   defendant'sfinancialaffidavits.Nonetheless,theSecond  Circuit'sobservationthattheoftrecognizedbenefitsfrompublic  monitoringofcriminaltrialsarealsorealizedintheCJAcontext \ hasimportantimplicationsforthiscaseaswell.]]Inline Te&xt" <<C  $USUS.,  =sdd=    9    _XZX=sdd= ` Thisisamoreexactingstandardthanthetestemployed  inotherjurisdictions.TheThirdCircuit,forexample,hasheld  that"it[is]theactoffilingvelnonthattrigger[s]the \ presumptionofaccess."Leucadia,Inc.v.AppliedExtrusionTechs., 8 Inc.,998F.2d157,16162(3dCir.1993)(listingcasesinwhich ^ "othercourtshavealsorecognizedtheprinciplethatthefilingof 4 adocumentgivesrisetoapresumptiverightofpublicaccess.").   Indeed,wehavepreviouslyruledthat"relevantdocumentswhichare   submittedto,andacceptedby,acourtofcompetentjurisdictionin f  thecourseofadjudicatoryproceedings,becomedocumentstowhich <   thepresumptionofpublicaccessapplies."StandardFinancial,830  b  F.2dat409.Underthesecriteria,documentssuchassearch  8   warrantaffidavitsandpresentencereportsareclassifiedas  judicialdocumentstowhichaqualifiedcommonlawrightofaccess  attaches.SeeInreBaltimoreSunCo.,886F.2d60,65(4thCir. \ 1989)(searchwarrantaffidavits);UnitedStatesv.Corbitt,879 2 F.2d224,237(7thCir.1989)(presentencereports).  $USUS.,  =sdd=    10    _=sdd= ` XZXThesubstanceof18U.S.C.3006A(d)(4)underscoreswhy  Gonzalezispoorauthorityforthemagistratejudge'sassertion  thattheCJApreemptstheapplicationofcommonlawprinciplesto \ theForm23affidavits.NotonlydoesGonzalezcitenoauthority 2 forthepropositionthatCongressintendedtheCJAstatuteand X regulationsto"occupy[the]fieldand...supercedethecommon . lawright[ofpublicaccess],"Gonzalez,150F.3dat1263,butthe   courtinGonzalezwasadjudicatingalocalnewspaper'spetitionto   unsealCJApaymentvouchersandreimbursementdocumentation, `  materialswhosedisclosureisdiscussedspecificallyandatgreat 6   lengthin18U.S.C.3006A(d)(4).Congress'sextendedtreatmentof  \  thesematerialsreflectstheuniquedangersattendingthepremature  2  disclosureofthisinformation,whichcouldpotentially"revealthe   strengthsandweaknessesofadefendant'scaseandhisorhertrial   strategy,includingpossibledefenses,witnesses,andevidenceto d  beusedattrial."Id.at1259.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  $USUS.,  =sdd=    11    _=sdd= ` XZXIndeed,atleastonecourthasfoundthat"[t]heCJAdoes  notmandatenorseeminglycontemplateaclosedpresentationof  financialinformation.Exparteproceedingsarenotconsistent \ withtraditionaladversarialproceedings."Coniam,574F.Supp.at 2 617n.2.  $USUS.,  =sdd=    12    _=sdd= ` XZXWhiletheSixthAmendmentgrantscriminaldefendants"the  righttoaspeedyandpublictrial,"thisamendmentisnotthe  sourceoftheconstitutionalrightofpublicaccesstoConnolly's \ financialaffidavitsurgedbytheBostonHerald.InRichmond 2 Newspapers,Inc.v.Virginia,448U.S.555(1980),theSupreme X Courtestablishedthatthepublic'srightofaccesstocriminal . proceedingsisrootedintheFirstAmendment:   8  Inguaranteeingfreedomssuchasthoseofspeechand `  press,theFirstAmendmentcanbereadasprotectingthe 6   rightofeveryonetoattendtrialssoastogivemeaning  \  tothoseexplicitguarantees...[T]heFirstAmendment  2  guaranteesofspeechandpress,standingalone,prohibit   governmentfromsummarilyclosingcourtroomdoorswhich   hadlongbeenopentothepublicatthetimethat d  Amendmentwasadopted.:     `   Id.at57576.Forthisreason,criminaldefendantscannot  foreclosepublicaccesstotheirtrialsandthedocumentssubmitted  thereinsimplybywaivingtheirSixthAmendmentrighttoapublic \ trial:"WhiletheSixthAmendmentguaranteestoadefendantina 2 criminalcasetherighttoapublictrial,itdoesnotguarantee X therighttocompelaprivatetrial."GannettCo.v.DePasquale, . 443U.S.368,382(1979). $USUS.,  =sdd=    14    _=sdd= ` XZXThemajorityarguesthatthisrealityunfairlyimposesa  "Hobson'schoice"onindigentcriminaldefendants,andcitesour  decisioninHoldenv.UnitedStates,393F.2d276(1stCir.1968) \ forthepropositionthat"defendantsarenottobeavoidably 2 discriminatedagainstbecauseoftheirindigency."Id.at278. X The"avoidablediscrimination"weconfrontedinHoldenimplicated . therightofthedefendanttomountaneffectivedefenseunburdened   bythedisclosureofinformationthatfinanciallyselfsufficient   defendantswouldnotberequiredtosubmit.WeruledthatHolden `  wasentitledtoexcludethegovernmentfromtherequiredexparte 6   proceedingforindigentdefendantsseekingasubpoenaunderFederal  \  RuleofCriminalProcedure17(b).Id.ThelanguageoftheCJA  2  reflectsCongress'ssensitivitytothissameprincipleof    protectingtheindigentdefendantfromdisclosuresthatwould  compromisetheabilitytomountaneffectivedefense.See18  U.S.C.3006A(d)(4)(directingcourtstodelayorlimitthe \ disclosureofpaymentinformationtoavoidunderminingthe 2 defendant'strialstrategy);18U.S.C.3006A(e)(granting X defendantsanexparteforumtorequestreimbursementfor . supplementalservices).Beyondthesespecificareas,thebroad   presumptionofdisclosurearticulatedintheA.O.Guideindicates   that,inthefaceofasubstantialpublicinterestintheCJA `  appointmentprocess,indigentdefendantsusingcourtappointed 6   counselwillbesubjecttodisclosurerequirementsrelatingto  \  theirprogrameligibilityandthecompensationoftheirattorneys  2  thatdonotapplytodefendantswithprivatelyretainedcounsel. v $USUS.,  =sdd=    15    _=sdd= ` XZXThusfar,thiscategoryislimitedtograndjury  proceedings,seePressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at9,XZXXXZԀjury  deliberations,seeTimesMirror,#XZXXXZ#873F.2dXZXXXZԀat1213,internalcourt \ communications,seeid.,and_presentence_Ԁreports,see_Corbitt_,#XZXXXZL#879 2 F.2dat224. } $USUS.,  =sdd=    16    _=sdd= ` XZXThemajoritystatesthat"[c]onstitutionalizingthe  accessquestion...displacesthepolicyestablishedbyCongress  andthecourts,"andhastheeffectof"render[ing]theentire \ discretionbasedframeworkintheA.O.Guideunconstitutional."To 2 thecontrary,recognizingaqualifiedFirstAmendmentrightof X accessconstrains,withintheCJAframework,thediscretionof . judgeswhoareaskedtosealdocuments.Thecaselawisreplete   withinstancesinwhichcourtshaverequiredthatastatutebe   appliedinamannerthatwillavoidaFirstAmendmentconflict. `  $ See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.ThreeJuveniles,61F.3d86(1stCir.  1995)(adoptinganarrowingconstructionoftheFederalJuvenile  DelinquencyAct);McDonnellDouglasv.PulitzerPublishingCo.,895 \ F.2d469(8thCir.1990)(construingtheFederalWiretapping 2 StatuteasrequiringjudgestoconductaFirstAmendmentbalancing X exercisetodeterminewhetherinterceptedconversationsincludedin . courtdocumentsshouldbepubliclydisclosed). dd(d2dddd !USUS.,  _sTRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !s     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#s#Ts  FortheFirstCircuit #TT=#T#V#   Ajc) ` dE<` A  XZX#X4 XXXZ#XZX XX4No.022340     INRE#X4 XXXZ#XZX XX4BOSTON#X4 XXXZ;#XZX XX4ԀHERALD,INC., ]  Petitioner. 3  Ajc) ` dE< ` A  /    No.022098   =UNITEDSTATES, p  v. l  JOHNJ.CONNOLLY,JR.,  Defendant,Appellee.  #X4 XXXZ#XZX XX4Ajc) ` dE<I` A J BOSTONHERALD,INC. / _Intervenor_,Appellant. U Ajc) ` dE<` A  XZXXXZONPETITIONFORWRITOFMANDAMUSTO,ANDAPPEALFROM,THEUNITED  STATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS l @@[Hon.JosephL.Tauro,U.S.DistrictJudge]#XZXXXZn#X4 XXXZs XX4 h Ajc) ` dE<` A >! #s##XZX# XXZ@@'Before M# Lynch,Lipez,andHoward,CircuitJudges.#XZX  ##XZXXXZd #  7$ Ajc) ` dE<"` A "&     XZXXXZ  ElizabethA._Ritvo_withwhomM.Robert_Dushman_,JeffreyP. #( Hermes,andBrown_Rudnick_Ԁ_Berlack_Ԁ_Israels_Ԁ_LLP_wereonbrieffor b$) petitionerappellant.#XZXXXZ # 8% *    `    XZXXXZAndrew_Nathanson_withwhomTracyA.Miner,JohnJ._Tangney_, &4", Jr.,and_Mintz_ԀLevinCohnFerris_Glovsky_Ԁand_Popeo_,P.C.wereon ' #- briefforrespondentappellee(JohnJ.Connolly,Jr.). (#.  #XZXXXZ #Ajc) ` dE<;*` A <*%0   February26,2003 !+q&2 hAjc) ` dE<,` A ,(4   ,,(5? _    8ZXXdd8*,X` XX*OY=ZXXdd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .JohnJ.Connolly,Jr.,the  defendantinahighlypublicizedcriminaltrial,appliedunderthe x CriminalJusticeAct(CJA),18U.S.C.3006A(2000),for $t governmentfundingforaportionofhisattorneys'feesandlegal   expenses.Connollyhadinformedthecourtthathewasalreadyin |  debttothecounselhehadpreviouslyretained,andcouldnolonger ( x  affordtopayhislegalbills.Hesubmittedfinancialaffidavits $  andanadditionaldocumentsummarizinghistotallegaldebt.The   courtgrantedhimCJAassistanceand,inresponsetohismotions, ,|  placedthedocumentshehadsubmittedunderseal.AfterConnolly's ( conviction,theBostonHerald,oneofBoston'stwomajordaily  newspapers,soughttointerveneinthecaseandtounsealthese 0 financialdocuments,arguingthatithadarightofaccesstothem , underboththeFirstAmendmentandthecommonlaw.Connolly  opposed.Amagistratejudgeallowedtheinterventionbutdenied 4 themotiontounseal,andthedistrictcourtaffirmed.TheHerald 0 thenfiledbothaninterlocutoryappealandapetitionforawrit   ofmandamuswiththiscourt. 8!"  ` Nofederalcourtofappeals,toourknowledge,has "4$ consideredwhetherthereisarightofaccesstothenarrow $& categoryofdocumentsatissuehere:thosesubmittedbyacriminal <&!( defendanttoshowfinancialeligibilityforCJAfunds.Weconclude '8#* thatthereisnorightofaccesstothiscategoryofdocuments )$, undereithertheFirstAmendmentorthecommonlaw.Evenifthere @+&. wereacommonlawpresumptionofaccess,therewasnoabuseof  discretionindenyingaccesshere.Weaffirmthedistrictcourt \ anddenymandamus. X   I.    ` ConnollyisaformerFBIagentwhowasaccusedof `  improprietyinhisrelationshipswithinformants,includingalleged  \  organizedcrimefiguressuchasJames"Whitey"BulgerandStephen   Flemmi.Moredetailabouttheearlierchaptersofthissagacanbe d  foundinUnitedStatesv.Flemmi,225F.3d78(1stCir.2000); `  UnitedStatesv.Salemme,91F.Supp.2d141(D.Mass.1999);and   UnitedStatesv.Salemme,978F.Supp.343(D.Mass.1997). h InformationaboutConnolly'srelationshipswasextractedfroma d reluctantgovernmentbyapersistenttrialjudgewhoheardthe  earliercriminalcases.Connolly'sprosecutionandtrialgarnered l extensivemediacoverageandpublicinterestnationwide,especially h intheBostonarea,wherehehadbeenemployedbytheFBI.OnMay  28,2002,Connollywasconvictedofracketeeringandobstructionof p  justiceintheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheDistrictof !l" Massachusetts. Hehasappealedhisconviction,andthatappeal "$ remainspendingseparately. t$&  ` AtapretrialhearingonMarch5,2002,Connolly's  &p!( attorneyinformedthedistrictcourtthatConnollyoweddefense '#* counselsubstantialunpaidlegalfees.Thecourtnotedthat,with x)$, atrialinthecomplexcaseduetobeginonlytwomonthslater, $+t&. substitutionofcounselwasnotfeasible.Toavoiddelay,the  courtraisedthepossibilitythattheattorneycouldbeappointed \ andpaidundertheCJAifConnollycoulddemonstratehis X eligibility. TheCJAappliesto"anyperson[whois]financially   unabletoobtainadequaterepresentation."18U.S.C.3006A(a). `   ` Twodayslater,ConnollysubmittedanapplicationforCJA  \  assistancetothecourt'sOfficeofPreTrialServices.The   applicationwasreferredtoamagistratejudge,whoappointed d  Connolly'slawyerundertheCJAinawrittenorderonMarch11, `  stating,"[I]tappearsthatalthoughthedefendantpossessesa   numberofsubstantialassets,thetotaloftheseassetsisless h thanhalfofhiscurrentliabilities."Mostoftheseliabilities, d theordersaid,werelegalbillsthatConnollyhadalready  incurred.Theorderlimitedfundingtocoveronlylegalservices l providedafterMarch5,whencounselfirstinformedthecourtof h Connolly'sfinancialproblems,anditrecommendedthatthecourt  reevaluateConnolly'seligibilityatthecloseofthecase.The p  compensationrateforCJAappointedcounselissignificantlybelow !l" theprevailingprivateratesforattorneysinBoston.AsofMay1, "$ 2002,shortlybeforeConnolly'strialbegan,itwas$90anhour, t$& andbeforethenitwas$75anhourforincourtworkand$55an  &p!( hourforworkperformedoutsidecourt. Thereisawaivablemaximum '#* totalof$5,200perlawyerforafelonycase.See18U.S.C.A. x)$, 3006A(d)(2)(3)(WestSupp.2002). $+t&.  ` ThemagistratejudgealsograntedConnolly'smotionsto  sealthreedocumentsthathehadsubmittedtodemonstratehisCJA \ eligibility. Theorderstosealthesedocumentswereissued X withoutwrittenfindings;therewasnoobjectiontothematthat   time.Twoofthethreesealeddocumentsareanoriginalandan `  amendedversionofConnolly'scompletedCJAForm23(the"CJA  \  forms"),astandard"financialaffidavit"signedunderpenaltyof   perjury.AblankcopyofForm23isappendedtothisopinion. It d  requirescomprehensivefinancialdata,includingemploymentincome `  ofthedefendantandhisorherspouse;allotherincome,cash,and   property;identificationofthedefendant'sdependents;andall h obligations,debts,andmonthlybills.Thethirddocument, d submittedinresponsetoaquestionfromthemagistratejudge,  statesthetotalofConnolly'soutstandinglegalfeesfromthedate l ofhisindictment,December22,1999,throughFebruary28,2002. h Themagistratejudge'swrittenorderappointingConnolly'slawyer  undertheCJAhasalwaysremainedpublic. p   ` OnJune7,2002,shortlyafterConnolly'sconviction,the !l" Heraldfiledamotiontointerveneandtovacatetheorderssealing "$ thethreedocuments.Connollyopposedthemotion.Thedistrict t$& courtreferredthemattertothesamemagistratejudge,whoallowed  &p!( theHeraldtointervene.InawrittenorderofJune24,2002he '#* deniedtheHerald'smotiontovacatethesealingorder. United x)$, Statesv.Connolly,206F.Supp.2d187,188(D.Mass.2002).On $+t&. July29,2002,thedistrictcourtoverruledtheHerald'sobjections  tothemagistratejudge'sorder. \   II. X 71A.AppellateJurisdiction    ` Afederalcourtmustsatisfyitselfofitsjurisdiction `  overacase,evenifallpartiesurgethereisjurisdiction. See  \  BIWDeceivedv.LocalS6,Indus.UnionofMarine&Shipbuilding   Workers,132F.3d824,828(1stCir.1997).Tobesureof d  receivingpromptreview,theHeraldprudentlymadeitsrequestfor `  accessthroughtwodifferentproceduralmeans,eachraisingthe   samesubstantiveissues.OnAugust19,2002,theHeraldfiledan h interlocutoryappealfromthedistrictcourt'sJuly29order;on d October21,itfiledapetitionforawritofmandamus.Weordered  thetwocasesconsolidatedandreceivedbriefingandoralargument l fromtheHeraldandConnolly. h  ` Anappealscourtmayexerciseitspowerofadvisory  mandamusundertheAllWritsAct,28U.S.C.1651(2000),whena p  petition"presentsanissueofgreatimportanceandnovelty,and !l" onetheresolutionofwhichwilllikelyaidotherjurists,parties, "$ andlawyers."InreJusticesofSuperiorCourtDep'tofMass. t$& TrialCourt,218F.3d11,15(1stCir.2000).Thiscourthasfound  &p!( advisorytypeofmandamuspowerpresentinatleasttwocases '#* arisingfromsimilarproceduralsettings,wheremediaoutlets x)$, challengedlimitationsplacedontheiraccesstoaproceedingor $+t&. documentbyadistrictcourt.SeeInreProvidenceJournalCo.,  293F.3d1,9(1stCir.2002);UnitedStatesv.Hurley(InReGlobe \ NewspaperCo.),920F.2d88,90(1stCir.1990).Theconditions X formandamusreviewaresimilarlysatisfiedhere.    ` TheHeraldalsoarguesthatwehavejurisdictionoverits `  interlocutoryappealunderthecollateralorderdoctrine.Cohenv.  \  BeneficialIndus.LoanCorp.,337U.S.541,546(1949).Thiscourt   recentlyleftopenthequestionofwhetherthedoctrineappliedin d  similarcircumstances.SeeProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat9.We `  findthatitapplieshere.Thestandardsforjurisdictionovera   collateralorderare"separability,finality,urgency,and h importance."InreCont'lInv.Corp.,637F.2d1,5(1stCir. d 1980).Alloftheseconditionsaremethere:thedispute  concerningtheHerald'saccesstodocumentsiseasilyseparated l fromtheunderlyingcriminalcase;theorderdenyingaccess h disposesoftheHerald'sclaimofanaccessrightwithfinality;  thenewsvalueoftheinformationwoulddeclineovertime,lending p  theinterlocutoryappealurgency,seeSotov.RomeroBarcelo(Inre !l" SanJuanStarCo.),662F.2d108,113(1stCir.1981);andthe "$ Heraldpresentsanimportantunsettledlegalquestion.Theorder t$& denyingaccessisacollateralorder,andwehavejurisdictionover  &p!( theinterlocutoryappealaswellasthemandamuspetition. '#*   x)$, !OY5B.TheCJAandDisclosure     ` Beforemovingtothemerits,webeginwithsomegeneral \ contextabouttheCJAanddisclosure,whichinformstheanalysis X thatfollows.     ` TheCJAprovidesforthegovernmenttopayforattorneys `  andrelatedservicesatspecifiedrates(usuallywellbelowmarket  \  rates)onbehalfofeligiblecriminaldefendants.Thestatute   appliestoanyonewhois"financiallyunabletoobtainadequate d  representation."18U.S.C.3006A(a).Guidelinespromulgatedby `  theAdministrativeOfficeoftheUnitedStatesCourtshave   elaboratedslightlyonthistersestatutorydefinition,bysaying h thatitappliestoadefendantwhose"netfinancialresourcesand d incomeareinsufficienttoenablehimtoobtainqualifiedcounsel"  andthatthecourtshouldconsider"thecostofprovidingthe l personandhisdependentswiththenecessitiesoflife."VII h Admin.OfficeofU.S.Courts,GuidetoJudiciaryPoliciesand  Procedures2.04(2001)[hereinafterA.O.Guide].*criminal A  1      ׀"Inabilityto p  payisnotthesameasindigenceordestitution."Museitefv. !l" UnitedStates,131F.3d714(8thCir.1997);see3AC.A.Wright, "$ FederalPractice&Procedure732(2ded.1982&Supp.2002)  (definingeligibilityasdefendant'sinabilityto"payforadequate \ representationwithoutsubstantialhardshiptohimselforhis X family").Thecourtmayrequestfurtherinformationor   verificationfromthedefendantorcourtofficers,andthe `  prosecutionorotherinterestedpartiesmayalsopresentrelevant  \  informationtoassistthecourtinitsdetermination.SeeVIIA.O.   Guide2.03. d   ` Themagistratejudgehereengagedinsuchfurther `  factfinding,byrequestingandreceivingthesummaryofConnolly's   legalbills.Hethenfoundthatthosepriorlegalbillsandother h liabilitiesweremorethandoubleConnolly'sassets,andthat d ConnollywaseligibleforappointmentofcounselundertheCJA.  Althoughitispossibletoprovideretroactivereimbursementfor l legalbillsincurredbeforetheCJAapplicationwassubmitted,see h 18U.S.C.3006A(b),theorderexplicitlyallowedpaymentsonly  forservicesprovidedafterMarch5,2002. p   ` Themagistratejudgealsorecommendedthatthedistrict !l" courtconsideratthecloseofthecasewhetherConnolly's "$ financialsituationhadimproved.TheCJAprovidesthat t$& "[w]henevertheUnitedStatesmagistratejudgeorcourtfindsthat  &p!( fundsareavailableforpaymentfromoronbehalfofaperson '#* furnishedrepresentation,itmayauthorizeordirect"thatthe x)$, personreimbursetheCJAfundsexpendedonhisorherlegal $+t&. defense.18U.S.C.3006A(f);seeUnitedStatesv.Merric,166  F.3d406,411(1stCir.1999)(allowingreimbursementofCJAfunds \ asconditionofsupervisedreleasewheredefendanthasmeansto X pay);UnitedStatesv.Fraza,106F.3d1050,1056(1stCir.1997)   (citingUnitedStatesv.Santarpio,560F.2d448,455(1stCir. `  1977))(courtmustholdhearingwhendeterminingwhetherdefendant  \  nowhasmeanstoreimburseCJAfunds).Theguidelinesrelyonthis   opportunityforreimbursementtorecommendthat,initially,"[a]ny d  doubtsastoaperson'seligibilityshouldberesolvedinhis `  favor;erroneousdeterminationsofeligibilitymaybecorrectedat   alatertime."VIIA.O.Guide2.04.Thusadecisiontogrant h Connolly'sapplicationbeforetrial,andrevisittheissue d afterwardsifthereweredoubtsastohiseligibility,wasan  ordinaryapplicationoftherelevantlawandrules. l  ` Thestatuteitselfissilentaboutdisclosureof h documentsdemonstratingadefendant'sfinancialeligibilityforCJA  status.TheActdoesrequireexpartehearingsforcertain p  determinations,suchasrequeststofundexpertservices.See18 !l" U.S.C.3006A(e)(1);UnitedStatesv.Abreu,202F.3d386,387, "$ 389(1stCir.2000).Accesstosuchrequestsmay,ofcourse, t$& disclosedefensestrategytotheprosecution,andsodonotinvolve  &p!( thesameinterestsastheissuebeforeus.Ontheotherhand, '#* CongressaddedanewprovisiontotheCJAin1996requiring x)$, disclosureofcertainbasicdataabouttheamountspaidtolawyers $+t&. undertheAct,withspecifiedexceptions.18U.S.C.3006A(d)(4);  Pub.L.No.104132,903(a)(1996). A  2      ׀Noneofthethreedocuments \ atissuehereincludesthattypeofdata.TheCJAformscontain X onlypersonalfinancialinformationabouttheConnollyfamily.The   sealedstatementoflegalfeessummarizesConnolly'sprevious `  privatelegalbills,whichwerespecificallyexcludedfromCJA  \  coverage.Nothinginthestatutestateswhetherthesetypesof   documentsshouldbepublic. d   ` TheA.O.Guidesetsoutageneralruleofdisclosureand `  givescourtsdiscretiontooverrideitinparticularcases:   0 ` Generally,suchinformationwhichisnototherwise h routinelyavailabletothepublicshouldbemade > available....d` (#` (# 0 ` Uponrequest,oruponthecourt'sownmotion,documents  pertainingtoactivitiesundertheCJAandrelated  statutesmaintainedintheclerk'sopenfiles,whichare l generallyavailabletothepublic,maybejudicially B placedundersealorotherwisesafeguardeduntilafter h alljudicialproceedings,includingappeals,inthecase > arecompletedandforsuchtimethereafterasthecourt  deemsappropriate.` (#` (#  ZVIIA.O.Guide5.01(A)(2000).Theguidelinesspecifysituations !l" thatwouldjustifydeparturefromthegeneralrule,includingthose "$ wheredisclosure"couldreasonablybeexpectedtoundulyintrude t$& upontheprivacyofattorneysordefendants."Id.  &p!(  ` Themagistratejudgequotedthesepassagesandweighed  thecompetinginterestsinvolved.Intheexerciseofhis \ discretion,heconcludedthatitwasappropriatetosealthe X documentsatissuehere,becausedisclosurewould"undulyintrude"   ontheprivacyofConnollyandhisfamily.Heruledthatthey `  wouldbesealedatleastuntilConnollyexhaustedhisappeals.We  \  donotconsiderthisordertobeasummarydismissal.The   magistratejudgeweighedthefactorswithdueconsiderationofthe d  presumptionofdisclosureembodiedintheA.O.Guide.Thecourt `  thusweighedthepublic'sinterest,whichexistsonbothsidesof   thisissue,aswellasthedefendant'sinterest. h  ` ThisdescriptionoftheCJAprocessraisestwoimportant d issues.First,itcallsintoquestionwhethertheCJAeligibility  documentsarejudicialdocumentsatall."Notalldocumentsfiled l withacourtareconsidered'judicialdocuments.'"UnitedStates h v.Gonzales,150F.3d1246,1255(10thCir.1998).Connollyargues  thatCongresscouldeasilyhavedelegatedthetaskofdetermining p  adefendant'seligibilityforCJAaidtoanonjudicialofficeror !l" toanexecutiveagency.Indeed,statesusemanydifferent "$ structurestogoverntheirindigentdefenseprograms,someofwhich t$& arehousedwithintheexecutivebranchandsomeofwhichare  &p!( independentagencies.SeegenerallyR.L.Spangenberg&M.L. '#*  Beeman,IndigentDefenseSystemsintheUnitedStates,Law& x)$, Contemp.Probs.,Winter1995,at31,3741.  A  3      Currentpractice   undertheCJAalsodelegatesmanyresponsibilitiesindetermining \ eligibilitytononjudicialofficers.SeeVIIA.O.Guide2.03(B) X (allowingcourttodesignateothercourtemployeesto"obtainor   verifythefactsuponwhich[theCJAeligibility]determinationis `  tobemade").TheformsusedtoapplyforCJAassistanceare  \  generatedbytheAdministrativeOffice,andConnollyfiledthem   withtheOfficeofPreTrialServicesratherthanwiththeclerkof d  thecourtorthejudge.Thesefactssupportaconclusionthatthe `  CJAeligibilitydocumentsarenotessentiallyjudicialin   character. h   ` Boththeconstitutionalandthecommonlawrightsof d accesshaveappliedonlytojudicialdocuments.SeeElDia,Inc.  v.HernandezColon,963F.2d488,495(1stCir.1992)(discussing l scopeofFirstAmendmentrightofaccessanditslimitationto h judicialactivities);Fed.TradeComm'nv.StandardFin.Mgmt.  Corp.,830F.2d404,408(1stCir.1987)("Thosedocumentswhich p  playnoroleintheadjudicationprocess...liebeyondreach"of !l" commonlawpresumption).Thereisnogeneralconstitutionalright  ofaccesstoinformationinthegovernment'spossession.See \ Houchinsv.KQED,Inc.,438U.S.1,15(1978)(pluralityopinion) X ("NeithertheFirstAmendmentnortheFourteenthAmendmentmandates   arightofaccesstogovernmentinformationorsourcesof `  informationwithinthegovernment'scontrol.");Zemelv.Rusk,381  \  U.S.1,17(1965)("Therighttospeakandpublishdoesnotcarry   withittheunrestrainedrighttogatherinformation."). d   ` AdeterminationthattheCJAeligibilitydocumentsare `  notjudicialdocumentswoulddisposeoftheHerald'sclaims   altogether.SeeM.A.Franklin,D.A.Anderson,&F.H.Cate,Mass h MediaLaw770(6thed.2000)("Onequestionthatrunsthroughmany d ofthesecasesiswhetherthematerialsatissuearejudicial  records.Ifthecourtdecidesthattheyarenot,thereappearsto l benorightofaccessundereitherthecommonlawortheFirst h Amendment.").Whilewethinkthatthesearenotjudicial  documents,wehesitatetodecidetheissuehereonthatbasis p  alone.Disentanglingjudges'judicialandadministrativerolescan !l" betricky,asseeninotherareas,suchasabsolutejudicial "$ immunity.SeeForresterv.White,484U.S.219,227(1988)("This t$& Courthasneverundertakentoarticulateapreciseandgeneral  &p!( definitionoftheclassofactsentitledto[judicial]immunity. '#* Thedecidedcases,however,suggestanintelligibledistinction x)$, betweenjudicialactsandadministrative...functionsthat $+t&. judgesmayonoccasionbeassignedbylawtoperform.");E.  Chemerinsky,FederalJurisdiction8.6(3ded.1999)("Although \ thedistinctionbetweenajudicialfunctionandanadministrative X oneisoftenclear,therearemanyinstancesinwhichthe   characterizationofthetaskisproblematic.").Whilewedonot `  relyonthisasthebasisforourdecision,wenotethatthe  \  administrativeprocessofdeterminingCJAeligibilityisfar   removedfromthecoreofthejudicialfunction. d   ` Asecondissueraisedbythisreviewisthedistinction `  betweenthestructurelaidoutintheA.O.Guideandtheblanket   prohibitionsfoundinmanyothercasesconcerningconstitutional h rightsofaccess.Courtshavedisfavoredblanketruleswhich d failedtoaccountforindividualcircumstances.TheSupremeCourt  emphasizedthispointwhenitoverturned,onconstitutional l grounds,aMassachusettslawwhichautomaticallyrequiredthe h closingofatrialwhenavictimundertheageofeighteen  testifiedconcerningcertainspecifiedsexualoffenses.Globe p  NewspaperCo.v.SuperiorCourt,457U.S.596,598,602(1982). !l" TheCourtthererecognizedthatprotectingaminor'swellbeingwas "$ acompellinginterest,butfoundthatthisinterest"doesnot t$& justifyamandatoryclosurerule,foritisclearthatthe  &p!( circumstancesoftheparticularcasemayaffectthesignificanceof '#* theinterest."Id.at608;seealsoid.at611(O'Connor,J., x)$, concurring)("Massachusettshasdemonstratednointerestweighty $+t&. enoughtojustifyapplicationofitsautomaticbartoallcases,  eventhoseinwhichthevictim,defendant,andprosecutorhaveno \ objectiontoanopentrial.").Similarly,thiscourthas X interpretedafederallawtoauthorize,butnotrequire,closing   certainjuvenileproceedings,anddeterminedthattherewas `  thereforenoneedtoreachtheconstitutionalquestion.SeeUnited  \  Statesv.ThreeJuveniles,61F.3d86,9092(1stCir.1995).    ` TheprocessforhandlingCJAeligibilitydocumentssuch d  asConnolly'sisnotablanketruledenyingaccess.Rather,it `  strikesabalanceunderwhichdisclosureisthepresumedordefault   rule,butonewhichacourtmaydisplacebymakingacasespecific h determination.Cf.ProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat12("Safeguards d againstprejudicecanbeimplementedonacasespecificbasis.  Whereaparticularizedneedforrestrictingpublicaccesstolegal l memorandaexists,thatneedcanbeaddressedbythetailoringof h appropriaterelief.");GlobeNewspaperCo.v.Pokaski,868F.2d  497,50607(1stCir.1989)(rejectingblanketruleinfavorof p  casebycasetailoring).Themagistratejudgeactedinaccordance !l" withthisframework. "$  ` IfaFirstAmendmentrightofaccessappliestothis t$& case,thenitrenderstheentirediscretionbasedframeworkinthe  &p!( A.O.Guideunconstitutional.Acourtcouldmeetthe"stringent" '#* FirstAmendmentstandardforsealingdocumentsonlybyarticulating x)$, "anoverridinginterestbasedonfindingsthatclosureisessential $+t&. topreservehighervaluesandisnarrowlytailoredtoservethat  interest."ProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat11(quotingPress \ EnterpriseCo.v.SuperiorCourt(PressEnterpriseI),464U.S. X 501,510(1984)).Despiteitspresumptionofdisclosureandits   carefulguidelinesforexercisingjudicialdiscretioninovercoming `  thepresumption,theA.O.Guideframeworkfallsbelowthislevelof  \  stringency.Constitutionalizingtheaccessquestion,asthe   dissentwoulddo,thusdisplacesthepolicyestablishedbyCongress d  andthecourts.Ifconstitutionalized,thecourt'sdiscretion `  wouldbemuchmoreconstrainedandthebalancewouldtiltmuch   furthertowarddisclosure.Applyingthedissent'sanalysisto h futurecaseswouldsimilarlyoustlegislativeandrulemaking d determinationsabouttheproperbalancebetweendisclosureand  privacyinthecourts. l C.FirstAmendmentRightofAccess h  ` TheSupremeCourtrecognizedaqualifiedFirstAmendment  rightofaccesstocertainjudicialproceedingsanddocumentsin p  RichmondNewspapers,Inc.v.Virginia,448U.S.555(1980).We !l" examinetwo"complementaryconsiderations"todetermineifa "$ constitutionalrightofaccessappliestoparticulardocumentssuch t$& asConnolly'sCJAformsandthesummarystatementofthelegalfees  &p!( heowedforpriorrepresentation.PressEnterpriseCo.v.Superior '#* Court(PressEnterpriseII),478U.S.1,8(1986);seeRichmond x)$, Newspapers,448U.S.at589(Brennan,J.,concurring)(applying $+t&. similarstandardsinearliercase);Pokaski,868F.2dat50204  (applyingPressEnterpriseIItesttodocuments).First,welook \ atwhethermaterialslikethesethreedocumentshavebeenopento X thepublicinthepast,"becauseatraditionofaccessibility   impliesthefavorablejudgmentofexperience."PressEnterprise `  II,478U.S.at8(internalquotationsomitted).Second,weask  \  "whetherpublicaccessplaysasignificantpositiveroleinthe   functioningoftheparticularprocessinquestion."Id.Ifour d  inquiryintotheseconsiderationsweretoyieldaffirmative `  answers,therightcouldbeovercomeonlybyan"overriding   interest."Id.(quotingPressEnterpriseI,464U.S.at510).We h reviewconstitutionalaccessclaimsdenovo.ProvidenceJournal, d 293F.3dat10.   ` Somecourtshavetreatedtheseconsiderationsasatwo l prongtest,withapairofelementsthatmustbothbesatisfied. h See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.ElSayegh,131F.3d158,16061(D.C.  Cir.1997);BaltimoreSunCo.v.Goetz,886F.2d60,64(4thCir. p  1989).Connolly,notsurprisingly,urgesustoadoptthisapproach !l" aswell.Weareunpersuadedthatthisisthecorrectreadingof "$ the"complementaryconsiderations"ofPressEnterpriseII.Because t$& wefindthatneitherofthestandardsismethere,however,weneed  &p!( notdecidethequestiontoday. '#*   ` 1.CaseLawApplyingFirstAmendmentStandards x)$, OY     ` Thefullscopeoftheconstitutionalrightofaccessis   notsettledinthelaw.Courtshaveevaluatedindividualcases \ whentheyaroseandhavedeterminedwhethereachfellwithinthe X categoryofjudicialactivitiestowhichtherightapplies.See   generallyD.Paul&R.J.Ovelmen,Access,in2CommunicationsLaw `  7(PracticingLawInstitute1999)(classifyingcaselawaccording  \  totypeofproceedingordocumentatissue).Thisprocessofcase   bycaseclassification,basedonthelimitedSupremeCourt d  precedents,hasproducedalistofproceedingsandrecordsthatare `  coveredbyaFirstAmendmentrightofaccessandalistofthose   wherenosuchrightattaches. h  ` SupremeCourtprecedentclearlyextendstheFirst d Amendmentrighttocoveraccesstocriminaltrials,Richmond  Newspapers,448U.S.at580,includingthevoirdireofpotential l jurors,PressEnterpriseI,464U.S.at50910,andtriallike h preliminaryhearingsincriminalcases,ElVocerov.PuertoRico,  508U.S.147,14950(1993)(percuriam);PressEnterpriseII,478 p  U.S.at10.SeealsoGlobeNewspaper,457U.S.at61011 !l" (overturninglawrequiringmandatoryclosingofcriminaltrials "$ duringtestimonyofminorswhowerevictimsofsexualabuse). t$&  ` BeyondthesefewSupremeCourtcases,lowercourtshave  &p!( extendedtherighttovarioustypesofdocuments.Thiscourthas '#* foundtherightapplicabletolegalmemorandafiledwiththecourt x)$, bypartiesincriminalcases ,seeProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat $+t&. 11,andtorecordsofcompletedcriminalcasesthatendedwithout  conviction,seePokaski,868F.2dat505.SeealsoHurley,920 \ F.2dat97(construingrulestorequirepresumptiveaccesstolists X ofjurors).    ` Courtshavealsoheldthatnorightofaccessappliesto `  someothertypesofproceedingsanddocuments.Theparadigmatic  \  exampleisthegrandjury,whoseproceedingsareconductedin   secret.SeePressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at9(citingDouglasOil d  Co.v.PetrolStopsN.W.,441U.S.211,218(1979))(grandjuryis `  "classic"exampleofproperlyclosedproceeding);Fed.R.Crim.P.   6(e)(establishinggeneralruleofgrandjurysecrecywith h enumeratednarrowexceptions);cf.Hurley,920F.2dat94(noting d lackofpublicaccesstodeliberationsofpetitjurors).The  secrecyofthegrandjuryissoimportantthatthiscourtand l othershavefoundnorightofaccessattachestodistincthearings h anddocumentsbecausetheycouldrevealsecretgrandjury  information.E.g.,Pokaski,868F.2dat509;InreMotionsofDow p  Jones&Co.,142F.3d496,50003(D.C.Cir.1998);UnitedStates !l" v.Smith,123F.3d140,143(3dCir.1997).Courtshavealso "$ rejectedclaimsbasedonFirstAmendmentrightsofaccesstoother t$& typesofdocuments,atleastincertaincircumstances.Thesehave  &p!( includeddiscoverymaterials,SeattleTimesCo.v.Rhinehart,467 '#* U.S.20,37(1984);Andersonv.Cryovac,Inc.,805F.2d1,13(1st x)$, Cir.1986),withdrawnpleaagreements,ElSayegh,131F.3dat161, $+t&. affidavitssupportingsearchwarrants,BaltimoreSun,886F.2dat  6465,andpresentencereports,UnitedStatesv.Corbitt,879F.2d \ 224,228(7thCir.1989). X  ` TwocourtsofappealshaveconsideredtheFirstAmendment   rightofaccesstodocumentsconcerningtheCJA.Inbothcases, `  however,thedocumentsatissuerelatedtoCJApaymentsto  \  attorneys,whichraisefewprivacyissues,ratherthantotheCJA   eligibilitydocumentsfiledbydefendants.Theresultsthese d  courtsreachedwerenotentirelyconsistent.TheTenthCircuit `  foundnoFirstAmendmentrightofaccesstothevouchersorbackup   materialsthatattorneyssubmittoreceivepaymentundertheCJA. h Gonzales,150F.3dat1250.Inacaseconcernedwithaccesstothe d "barebonesdata"foundinattorneys'CJAvouchers A  4      ׀butnotthemore  detailedbackupmaterials,theSecondCircuitfounda l constitutionalrightofaccess.UnitedStatesv.Suarez,880F.2d h 626,63031(2dCir.1989);cf.UnitedStatesv.Ellis,90F.3d  447,45051(11thCir.1996)(avoidingdecidingFirstAmendment p  issueinCJAcasebyrestingdecisionontextualinterpretationof !l" regulations). "$  ` Asthesecasesdemonstrate,theFirstAmendmentdoesnot t$& grantthepressorthepublicanautomaticconstitutionalrightof  &p!( accesstoeverydocumentconnectedtojudicialactivity.Rather,  courtsmustapplythePressEnterpriseIIstandardstoaparticular \ classofdocumentsorproceedingsanddeterminewhethertheright X attachestothatclass.    ` 2.Tradition `   ` Oneresponsetothe"tradition"inquirywouldpointto  \  therelativelyrecentvintageoftheCJA,firstenactedin1964,   andconcludethattherehasnotbeenenoughtimeforalongstanding d  practiceofacrosstheboarddisclosuretodevelopunderthe `  statute.Traditionisnotmeant,wethink,tobeconstruedso   narrowly;welookalsotoanalogousproceedingsanddocumentsof h thesame"typeorkind."RiveraPuigv.GarciaRosario,983F.2d d 311,323(1stCir.1992);seeElVocero,508U.S.at15051  (findingpretrialcriminalhearingsinPuertoRicoanalogousto l otherpretrialhearingstowhichFirstAmendmentrightapplies, h despitedistinctionsnotedbyPuertoRicoSupremeCourt);Press  EnterpriseII,478U.S.at1011(evaluatingCaliforniapretrial p  hearingsbylookingtopracticesofotherstatesandtoothertypes !l" ofhearings,includingprobablecausehearinginAaronBurr's1807 "$ trialfortreason). t$&  ` Theanalogiesmustbesolidones,however,whichserveas  &p!(  reasonableproxiesforthe"favorablejudgmentofexperience" '#* concerningaccesstotheactualdocumentsinquestion.Id.at8. A  5      ׀   TheHeraldstraystoofarfromtheparticularnatureoftheCJA \ eligibilitydocumentswhenitproposestwosupposedlyanalogous X traditionsofopenness,namelyaccesstocriminaltrialsandaccess   toinformationabouttheexpenditureofpublicfunds.  `   ` Theasserted"criminaltrial"traditionistoobroadan  \  analogy.Asseenfromexamplessuchasgrandjurymaterialsand   presentencereports,themereconnectionofadocumentwitha d  criminalcasedoesnotitselflinkthedocumenttoatraditionof `  publicaccess.TheHeraldalsoarguesthatCJAeligibility   determinationspotentiallyimplicatethedefendant'sconstitutional h rights,andthatanerroneousdenialofeligibilitycouldbe d groundsforreversalofaconviction,sothatthesedecisionsare  fundamentallytiedtothetrialitself.  A  6      ׀Thesamecouldbesaidof l othersignificantproceedings,includingthegrandjury,which  remainclosed.Documentssubmittedinconjunctionwithdiscovery \ proceedings,forexample,donottherebybecomepartofthetrial X towhichthetraditionofaccessapplies.SeeAnderson,805F.2d   at12;seealsoStateexrel.WHIOTV7v.Lowe,673N.E.2d1360, `  1364(Ohio1997)(applyingruleondiscoverytocriminal  \  proceeding).    ` Indeed,thebreadthoftheHerald'sattackwouldgoto d  anydocumentinacriminalcaseorderedsealedbyacourt.TheCJA `  eligibilitydocumentsareperipheraltoConnolly'strialwhen   comparedtothoseprocesseswhereatraditionofaccesshas h triggeredtheFirstAmendmentright,suchastheselectionofa d jury,PressEnterpriseI,464U.S.at505,orthelegalmemoranda  submittedaboutthemeritsofthecase,ProvidenceJournal,293 l F.3dat11.Toconcludeotherwisewouldcreatearightofaccess h toeverythingremotelyassociatedwithcriminaltrials,andwould  becontrarytoprecedentemployingmorefinelyhoned p  classifications. !l"  ` TheHeraldalsosuggeststhatthereisan"expenditureof "$ publicfunds"traditionofaccess.Thiscomparisoncollapseson t$& examinationaswell.Thepremiseisitselfoverbroad.  &p!( Prosecutors,forinstance,donottraditionallypublishdetailed '#* informationexplainingtheiruseofgovernmentresources,muchless x)$, breakitdownonacasebycasebasis.SeeGonzales,150F.3dat $+t&. 1255.TheCJAitselfcontemplatesexpartenonadversarial  proceedingsforcertaindeterminationsinvolvingexpendituresfor \ indigentdefense,despitetheresultingexpenditureofpublic X funds.    ` Assupportforits"publicfunds"approach,theHerald `  arguesthatcivilfeeshiftingdeterminationshavetraditionally  \  beenpublic,andcitesadistrictcourtopinionfromFloridathat   usedthisanalogy,UnitedStatesv.Ellis,154F.R.D.692,69596 d  (M.D.Fla.1993),aff'donothergrounds,90F.3dat451("Inthe `  civilcontext,thereisalonghistoryofdetaileddisclosureabout   attorneyfeesandtheservicesrenderedwhenthereisafee h shiftingstatuteorcontract.").Thattraditionisverydifferent d fromthefactsathand.SeegenerallyGonzales,150F.3dat1257  (rejectingsimilaranalogybetweenfeeshiftingandCJA).Fee l shiftingdisputesoccurinthecontextofadversariallitigation. h Id.Theclaimantfilesapublicdocumentstatingitsfeesand  costs.ThatdocumentismoreakintoastatementofCJAfundspaid p  toattorneysaftertheyhavebeenappointedastatementwhichis !l" generallymadepublicandisquitedifferentfromdataabouta "$ criminaldefendant'spersonalfinancialcircumstances.Moreover, t$& attorney'sfeesincivilcasescanbeconceptualizedaspartofthe  &p!( awardtoaprevailingpartyforunlawfulconductagainstitif '#* certainstandardsaremet.See,e.g.,TamkoRoofingProds.,Inc. x)$, v.IdealRoofingCo.,282F.3d23,3032(1stCir.2002)(analyzing $+t&. attorney'sfeeawardsunderLanhamActincontextoflosingparty's  unlawfulbehavior).Nosuchsimilarpolicyisinvolvedinthe \ determinationthatadefendantiseligibletohavecounsel X appointedundertheCJA.    ` Connollyoffersabetteranalogywhenhecitesto `  governmentbenefitsprogramsadministeredbytheexecutivebranch,  \  wherethestrongtraditionisoneofconfidentialityratherthan   disclosure.See,e.g.,42U.S.C.302(a)(7)(2000)(establishing d  safeguardstopreventpublicdisclosureofinformationaboutSocial `  Securityrecipients).Wewouldthinkittheexception,notthe   rule,torequireapplicantsforbenefitsprogramstodisclose h privatefinancialdataaboutthemselvesandtheirimmediatefamily d tothepublic.   ` Finally,theHerald'srelianceondictainFoleyv.City l ofLowelltodemonstratethe"publicfunds"traditionismisplaced. h 948F.2d10,19(1stCir.1991)("[T]hecontinuedviabilityofand  confidenceinthepublicfundingofcertainlitigationare p  dependentontheperceptionthatclaimsforcounselfeesare !l" subject...totheindependentreviewofacourt.")(emphasis "$ addedbypetitionerappellant;internalquotationomitted).Foley t$& hadnothingtodowiththeCJA;itanalyzedcivilfeeshiftingin  &p!( apolicebrutalitycaseunder42U.S.C.1988.See948F.3dat '#* 18.Morefundamentally,Foleyhadnothingtodowithpublic x)$, access;itconcernedacourt'sindependentdutytoprobeacivil $+t&. plaintiff'scalculationofawardedattorney'sfeeswhenthe  governmentaldefendantwhowouldpaythefees"mountedno \ meaningfulopposition"toit.Id.at19("Atleastwherepublic X fundsareinvolvedorthepublicinterestisotherwiseimplicated,   thecourthasadutytoconsidertheapplicationcriticallyto `  ensureoverallfairness....").Noneofthislendsanysupport  \  totheexistenceofarelevanttraditionofpublicaccess.    ` The"judgmentofexperience"doesnotsupporta d  constitutionalrightofaccesstoCJAeligibilitymaterials. `   ` 3.PositiveFunctionalRole    ` TheotherconsiderationunderPressEnterpriseIIis h whetheraccesstoCJAeligibilitydocuments"playsaparticularly d significantpositiveroleintheactualfunctioningofthe  process."478U.S.at11.Here,theprocessinquestionisoneof l determiningeligibilityforCJAassistance.Notonlydoespublic h accesstoadefendant'sfinancialdocumentationinsupportofaCJA  applicationfallshortofthisstandard,morelikelyitwouldplay p  anegativerole. !l"  ` Thescopeofthisstandardwarrantsclarification.The "$ Heraldmisinterpretstheproperinquirywhenitarguesthatprivacy t$& interestsmayreceivenoconsiderationatallduringthisstage.  &p!( Instead,accordingtotheHerald,"countervailinginterestsdonot '#* evenenterintotheanalysisuntilafterthequalifiedrighthas x)$, beenestablished." Onlyatthatpoint,saystheHerald,whenthe $+t&. courtconsiderswhetherparticularcircumstancesovercomea  qualifiedrightofaccess,mayitlooktoprivacyorotherconcerns \ thatmilitateagainstdisclosureinagivencase.Butatestthat X isblindtothefunctionaldrawbacksofaccessbecomesnotestat   all.Thereasonisthat"therearesomekindsofgovernment `  operationsthatwouldbetotallyfrustratedifconductedopenly,"  \  PressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at9(discussingfunctional   standard),orwouldatleastbehindered.Itmaybethatthe d  processofdeterminingCJAeligibilityisoneofthose.That `  cannotbeascertainedwithoutsomereferencetothepotential   problemscreatedbypublicaccessaswellastotheadvantages. A  7       h  ` First,CJAeligibilitydeterminations,iftheyare d judicialatall,liefarfromthecoreofjudicialpowerorthe  meritsofthecriminalcase.Manyoftheflagshipfunctional l justificationsforaccessthusbecomelessrelevant.Unliketrials h themselves,accesstothedefendant'sCJAfinancialstatementsdoes  notprovidean"outletforcommunityconcern,hostility,and  emotion"concerningacrime.RichmondNewspapers,448U.S.at571. \ And,unlikeotherdecisionsthatmay"imposeofficialandpractical X consequencesuponmembersofsocietyatlarge,"id.at597   (Brennan,J.,concurring),CJAeligibilitydeterminationsneverdo `  so.  \   ` Aremainingfunctional"advantage"whichtheHerald   advancesistheoftcitedneedforthepublictohavethe"full d  understanding"necessaryto"serveasaneffectivecheckonthe `  system."Pokaski,868F.2dat502,quotedinProvidenceJournal,   293F.3dat10.Inisolation,the"fullunderstanding"rationale h provestoomuchunderit,evengrandjuryproceedingswouldbe d public.Astothe"effectivecheck"rationale,wehavedoubts  aboutwhetherpublicscrutinyofanapplicant'sfinancialdata l wouldactuallyimprovejudges'decisionmakingastoCJA h eligibility.SeeGonzales,150F.3dat1260.   ` UndertheA.O.Guideframework,CJAeligibilitydecisions p  willbefullyopentopublicscrutinyincaseswherenoparticular !l" privacyconcernsarepresentforwhateverreasons,orwherethe "$ defendantdoesnotobjecttodisclosure.Thefactthatan t$& applicationwasfiledandanattorneyappointedarepublicmatters  &p!( whichareenteredonthedocketofacase.Thegeneralreasonfor '#* Connolly'sfinancialneed,rationalonitsface,wasarticulatedin x)$, theorderappointinghisattorney,alsoapublicdocument.The $+t&. amountsofmoneypaidtoConnolly'sattorneywillpresumablybe  madepublicinduecourseunderthenewestversionof \ 3006A(d)(4).TheonlysignificantaspectsofConnolly'sCJA X applicationthatwerenotmadepublicarethedetailsofhis   family'sassets,liabilities,andfinancialobligations. `   ` Publicaccesstoadefendant'sfinancialinformation  \  wouldnotusuallyfacilitategreateraccuracyindecisionmaking.   ThestandardsforgrantingCJAassistanceareflexibleandgivethe d  benefitofthedoubttoadefendantwhoappliesforaid.Thetype  `   ofinformationontheformsisnottypicallyinthepublicdomain   andsothepublicisnotwellpositionedtochallengeaccuracy.If h thejudgehasdoubtsabouttheaccuracyofthefinancial d informationsubmitted,thedatamaybeinvestigatedormore  informationprovidedbydefendants,courtofficers,orprosecutors. l SeeVIIA.O.Guide2.03.Ifthedataisinaccurate,thecourt h mayrescindtheappointmentandorderthedefendanttorepayany  fundsspent.18U.S.C.3006A(f).Sinceadefendant'sfinancial p  conditionisusuallyinvestigatedintheprocessofpreparinga !l" presentencereport,thecourtisawarethat,intheeventofa "$ conviction,therewillbeanindependentexaminationofa t$& defendant'sfinancialstatusatthattime.Inaddition,thereare  &p!( possiblecriminalconsequencesforadefendantwhoknowinglyfiles '#* falseinformation;CJAForm23indicatesclearlythatitissigned x)$, andsubmittedunderpenaltyofperjury. $+t&.  ` Finally,eachindividualCJAappointmentmayinvolvea  comparativelysmallamountofmoney,normallycappedat$5,200for \ afelonycase.See18U.S.C.3006A(d)(2).Theactualamountof X moneyspentonappointedcounselispublic.Seeid.3006A(d)(4).   UnderthefunctionalstandardofPressEnterpriseII,thereal `  world"positiverole"ofpublicscrutinyofCJAeligibility  \  materialsisnegligibleatbest.    ` Ontheotherhand,thedisclosureofadefendant's d  sensitivepersonalfinancialinformation,whichhasnobearingon `  themeritsofthecriminaltrial,couldwellunderminethejudicial   processinotherways.Initself,theinvasionofprivacyinherent h indisclosingthisdataisofconcern.SeeCorbitt,879F.2dat d 23032(weighingdefendants'personalprivacyinterestswhen  maintainingsealonpresentencereports).Thisconcernis l magnifiedbythecrucialroleoftheCJAasavehicletoeffectuate h SixthAmendmentrightsfordefendantswhocannotaffordlegal  representation. p   ` Aconstitutionallybasedrightofaccesstootherwise !l" privatepersonalfinancialdataofone'sownandone'sfamily "$ imposesahighpriceontheexerciseofone'sconstitutionalright t$& toobtaincounselifinfinancialneed.Oursystemofjustice  &p!( cherishes"theprinciplethatdefendantsarenottobeavoidably '#* discriminatedagainstbecauseoftheirindigency."Holdenv. x)$, UnitedStates,393F.2d276,278(1stCir.1968).Butastrict $+t&. disclosurerequirementcouldwelldiscourageeligibledefendants  fromavailingthemselvesoftheirrighttocounselbyforcingthem \ tochoosebetweenprivacyandCJAassistanceachoicethatother X defendantsdonotface. A  8      ׀Thespecterofdisclosurealsomightlead   defendants(orothersourcescalleduponbythecourt)towithhold `  information.Publicdisclosureofsuchinformationmayputthemat  \  riskofharmtotheirpropertyortheirfamiliesiftheinformation   ismisusedbytheirenemies.Thereisaprospectofunbalancing d  thescalesinacriminalprosecutioniftheinformationinCJA `  applicationmaterialscouldassisttheprosecution,thusraising   thespecterofclaimsofdenialofFifthAmendmentrights.Cf. h Gonzales,150F.3dat1259("[CJA]informationobtainedafter d judgmentcouldstillbeusedbythegovernmenttoinvestigateand  bringnewcharges....").Sucheffectstendtodisrupt,not l enhance,thefunctioningoftheprocess. h  ` UndertheFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure,  presentencereportsmustcontaintheverysametypeoffinancial p  informationasisfoundinCJAforms.SeeFed.R.Crim.P. !l" 32(d)(2)(A)(ii).Butpresentencereportsarepresumptively "$ confidentialdocuments."[T]hecourtshavetypicallyrequiredsome t$& showingofspecialneedbeforetheywillallowathirdpartyto  &p!( obtainacopyofapresentencereport."U.S.Dep'tofJusticev.  Julian,486U.S.1,12(1988);seeUnitedStatesv.Smith,13F.3d \ 860,867(5thCir.1994);Corbitt,879F.2dat229.Thisstandard X fordisclosureisobviouslynottheFirstAmendmentstandard,which   presumesdisclosure.Asanothercircuitnoted,eveninthefaceof `  aBradyrequestforinformationfromanotherdefendant's  \  presentencereport,thefinancialconditionofthedefendantis   confidentialandintenselypersonal.UnitedStatesv.Trevino,89 d  F.3d187,191(4thCir.1996).Nocircuitcourthasheldthat `  thirdpartieshaveaconstitutionalrightofaccesstopresentence   reports;rather,courtshavereachedthecontraryresult.See h Corbitt,879F.2dat237.Selfevidently,thepresentencereport, d onwhichsentencesarebased,isclosertotheheartofjudicial  proceedingsthantheCJAeligibilitydocuments.Itisdifficultto l understandwhy,ifthereisnoFirstAmendmentrightofaccessto h informationaboutadefendant'sfinancialconditionatsentencing  andduringhisimprisonment,therecouldbeaFirstAmendmentright p  ofaccesstoastatementofthedefendant'sfinancialinformation !l" attrial,whenheispresumedinnocentandismerelyexercisinghis "$ SixthAmendmentrighttocounsel. t$&  ` Onbalance,then,disclosurewouldnotplay"a  &p!( particularlysignificantpositiveroleintheactualfunctioningof '#* theprocess"ofdeterminingCJAeligibility.PressEnterpriseII, x)$, 478U.S.at11.Rather,disclosureislikelytoplayanegative $+t&. role.Nordothelessonsoftraditionsupportthewisdomofpublic  access.TheFirstAmendmentdoesnotgrantarightofaccess,over \ thedefendant'sobjection,tofinancialdocumentssubmittedto X demonstratethedefendant'seligibilityforCJAfunds.Thecurrent   CJAframework,inwhichthesematerialsaretypicallydisclosed `  unlessthecourtdecidesthatthedocumentsshouldbesealed,is  \  constitutional.   D.CommonLawPresumptionofAccess d   ` Inadditiontoanyconstitutionalright,thereisalsoa `  presumptionofpublicaccessto"judicialrecords"underthecommon   law.Nixonv.WarnerCommunications,Inc.,435U.S.589,597 h (1978);Anderson,805F.2dat13.TheHeraldarguesthatthis d presumptioninvalidatesthesealingofConnolly'sCJAeligibility  documents.Assumingthatanycommonlawrighthasnotbeen l displacedbythestatute,seeGonzales,150F.3dat1263,wehold h thatthepresumptionisnotapplicabletothesetypesofdocuments,  andthatifitwere,themagistratejudgestillcorrectlyexercised p  hisdiscretioninfindingitovercomebycountervailinginterests. !l"  ` Thecommonlawpresumptionislimitedto"judicial "$ records."Aswehaveestablishedalready,wedonotthinkthatCJA t$& eligibilitydocumentsqualifyassuch.Rather,theyare  &p!( administrativepaperworkgeneratedaspartofaministerialprocess '#*  ancillarytothetrial.Whilethereviewofthesedocumentsis x)$, conductedbyadistrictjudgeormagistratejudge,thatrolecould  havebeenassignedtoanotherinstitution. \   ` Incasesconsideringthecommonlawright,thiscourthas X oftenusedadefinitionofa"judicialrecord"whichrefersto   "materialsonwhichacourtreliesindeterminingthelitigants' `  substantiverights."See,e.g.,ProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat16  \  (quotingAnderson,805F.2dat13).TheHeraldseizesonthis   languageandarguesthattherighttocounselinacriminaltrial d  is,ofcourse,asubstantiverightguaranteedbytheSixth `  Amendment.Thisargumenttakesourshorthanddefinitionoutof   context.InAnderson,whereitoriginated,thephrasewasusedto h distinguishdocumentspresentedtoajudgeinconnectionwitha d discoverydisputefromtherecordonwhichajudgeactuallydecides  thecentralissuesinacase.805F.2dat13("[D]iscoveryis l fundamentallydifferentfromthoseproceedingsforwhicha[common h law]publicrightofaccesshasbeenrecognized.").Similarly,we  haveappliedthisdefinitiontodocumentsonwhichacourtrelied p  inapprovingaconsentdecreebecausethatapprovalsettledacivil !l" enforcementaction.StandardFin.Mgmt.,830F.2dat40809. "$  ` Here,incontrast,thecourtdidnotconductitsreview t$& ofConnolly'sfinancesinordertodisposeofanyissueastothe  &p!( elementsofthecriminalchargesagainsthim.AsinAnderson,the '#* CJAeligibilitydocumentsrelatedmerelytothejudge'srolein x)$, managementofthetrial.Cf.StandardFin.Mgmt.,830F.2dat408 $+t&. (excludingfrompresumption"documentswhichplaynoroleinthe  adjudicationprocess").Otheradministrativedecisionsthat \ effectuateconstitutionalrightsaremadeoutsidethejudiciary X entirely,andcreatenopresumptionofaccesstothedocumentsused   inthedecision.Forexample,prisonersareconstitutionally `  entitledtomedicaltreatment,Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,102  \  104(1976),butthedecisiontoprovidetreatmentisnotthereby   "judicial,"nordoaprisoner'smedicalrecordstherebybecome d  "judicialdocuments."Cf.Doev.Delie,257F.3d309,31516(3d `  Cir.2001)(privacyofprisonermedicalinformation).    ` EvenassumingthatCJAeligibilitydocumentswerecovered h byacommonlawpresumptionofaccess,wewouldstillaffirmthe d magistratejudge'sdecisiontomaintainthesealingofConnolly's  CJAapplicationmaterials.Thestandardforourreviewisabuseof l discretion.Siedlev.PutnamInvs.,Inc.,147F.3d7,10(1stCir. h 1998)("Thetrialcourtenjoysconsiderableleewayinmaking  decisionsofthissort.")."[T]hedecisionasto[commonlaw] p  accessisonebestlefttothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt, !l" adiscretiontobeexercisedinlightoftherelevantfactsand "$ circumstancesoftheparticularcase."Nixon,435U.S.at599. t$& Themagistratejudge'sshortbutclearorderbalancedthepublic  &p!( interestintheinformationagainstprivacyinterests,andhis '#*  conclusionwasnotanabuseofdiscretion. x)$,  ` Personalfinancialinformation,suchasone'sincomeor   bankaccountbalance,isuniversallypresumedtobeprivate,not \ public.SeeUnitedStatesv.Amodeo(AmodeoII),71F.3d1044, X 1051(2dCir.1995)(courtsanalyzingcommonlawpresumptionshould   "considerthedegreetowhichthesubjectmatteristraditionally `  consideredprivateratherthanpublic").Themagistratejudge  \  sensiblyconcludedthatConnolly'sstronginterestintheprivacy   ofhisandhisfamily'spersonalfinancialinformationoutweighs d  anycommonlawpresumptioninthesecircumstances. `   ` Recognitionoftheimportanceoffinancialprivacyis   alsoenshrinedinpublicpolicy.TheFreedomofInformationAct, h applicableonlytoexecutivebranchmaterials,exemptspersonaland d confidentialfinancialinformationfromdisclosure.See5U.S.C.  552(b)(4)(2000).Congressrecentlysingledoutfinancial l informationforspecialprivacyprotectionwhenitapprovedan h overhaulofthenation'sbankingregulations.SeeGrammLeach  BlileyActof1999(GLBAct),Pub.L.No.106102,501510 p  (1999)(codifiedat15U.S.C.68016809(2000));TransUnionLLC !l" v.Fed.TradeComm'n,295F.3d42(D.C.Cir.2002)(upholding "$ regulationsimplementingGLBAct'sprivacyprovisions).See t$& generallyElec.PrivacyInfo.Ctr.,TheGrammLeachBlileyAct,at  &p!( http://www.epic.org/privacy/glba.Statesarealsoconsidering '#* greaterprotectionforfinancialprivacy.SeeGen.Accounting x)$, Office,FinancialPrivacy(April2002)(summarizingstate $+t&. implementationofGLBAct'sprovisionsconcerninginsurance  industry);A.Clymer,NorthDakotaTightensLawonBankDataand \ Privacy,N.Y.Times,June13,2002,atA28(reportingthat72 X percentofvotersinstatewidereferendumsupportedtighter   financialprivacyrestrictionsthanfederallaw);R.Gold,States `  MullOptIn,OptOutRules,WallSt.J.,Mar.13,2002,atB8,  \  availableat2002WLWSJ3388589(reportinggreaterinterestin   statelegislaturesbecause"consumers[are]increasinglyworried d  abouthavingtheirfinancialdataopentoscrutiny"). `   ` Inaddition,theSupremeCourthasexplainedthatacourt   consideringthecommonlawpresumptionenjoys"supervisorypower" h todenyaccesswhere"courtfilesmighthavebecomeavehiclefor d improperpurposes"andto"insurethatitsrecordsarenot'usedto  gratifyprivatespiteorpromotepublicscandal.'"Nixon,435U.S. l at598(quotingInreCaswell,29A.259,259(R.I.1893)).The h magistratejudgewouldbewellwithinhisdiscretiontoconsider  thisfactoraswell. p   ` Finally,theinvasivenessofthedisclosuresoughthere !l" isfurtherintensifiedbecausetheinformationpertainsnotonlyto "$ Connolly,butalsotohiswifeandchildren.SeeAmodeoII,71 t$& F.3dat1050(givingincreasedweighttoprivacyinterestsof  &p!(  "innocentthirdparties"). '#*  ` Thus,evenifacommonlawpresumptionappliedto  Connolly'sCJAformsandstatementofpriorlegalfees,wewould \ stillaffirmthemagistratejudge'sdecision. X    III.   , ` WhiletheHeraldhaspresenteditscaseably,wehold `  thatneithertheFirstAmendmentnorthecommonlawprovidesa  \  rightofaccesstofinancialdocumentssubmittedwithaninitial   applicationtodemonstrateadefendant'seligibilityforCJA d  assistance.Wealsoholdthat,eveniftherewereacommonlaw `  presumptionofaccess,thenitwouldbeoutweighedhere,asthe   courtsbelowfound,byConnolly'scountervailingprivacyinterests. h Theremaycomeatimeinthefutureoftheseproceedingswhenit d wouldbeappropriatetoliftthesealonConnolly'sCJAapplication  materials;weleavethatdecision,liketheoriginaldecisionto l seal,tothediscretionofthedistrictcourt. h  ` Thepetitionforawritofmandamusis denied andthe  decisionofthedistrictcourtis affirmed .      (Dissentfollows.) #P$ )1 `  $ &  ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge, dissenting. TheBostonHerald  intervenedinthecriminaltrialofJohnJ.Connolly,Jr.,seeking x tounsealthreedocumentssubmittedbyConnollyaspartofhis $t applicationundertheCriminalJusticeAct("CJA"),18U.S.C.   3006A(2000),forgovernmentpaymentofaportionofhisattorney's |  feesandlegalexpenses.Twodocumentsareanoriginalandamended ( x  CJAForm23affidavit,andthethirddocumentreflectsConnolly's $  outstandinglegalfeesatthetimeofhisapplication.TheCJA   Form23requiresapplicantstoprovidedetailedinformationabout ,|  theirfamilystatus,employmentincome,otherassets(including ( otherincome,cash,andproperty)anddebtobligations.   ` ThemagistratejudgedeniedtheHerald'smotion, 0 determiningthat"[t]hereisnoFirstAmendmentrightofaccessto , CJArelatedbackupdocumentation,motions,ordersandhearing  transcripts....Further,the[CJA]statuteandregulations.. 4 .supercedethecommonlawrightifoneexisted."Notingthathe 0 hadoriginallysealedthedocumentsbecausetheirdisclosurewould   "undulyintrudeupontheprivacyofthedefendant,"themagistrate 8!" judgereaffirmedhisearlierposition:"Ideclinetoexercisemy "4$ discretiontounsealthedocumentsatthistimebecauseIfindthat $& theintrusionontheprivacyofthedefendantandthatofhis <&!( familyifthedocumentswerereleasedwouldbeassubstantialnow '8#*  asitwaswhenthesealingorderswereentered." )$,  ` ThisdispositionoftheBostonHerald'sclaimsis   tantamounttoarulingthatCJAeligibilityforms,whichcontain \ onlypersonalfinancialinformation,maybeshieldedfrompublic X disclosurewithoutbalancingthepublicinterestinaparticular   applicant'seligibilityinformationagainstthedegreeofintrusion `  intotheapplicant'sprivacy.BecauseIconcludethataqualified  \  rightofpublicaccessattachestoCJAeligibilityinformation   underboththecommonlawandtheFirstAmendment,Icannotagree d  withthemajority'sdecisiontoupholdthemagistratejudge's `  summarydismissaloftheBostonHerald'sclaims.Thepublicright   ofaccessunderthesetwodoctrinesconstrainsthediscretionof h judgestosealCJAForm23information.Accordingly,Iwould d remandthiscaseforadeterminationofwhetherthepublic'sright  ofaccessundertheFirstAmendmentisovercome"byanoverriding l interestbasedonfindingsthatclosureisessentialtopreserve h highervaluesandisnarrowlytailoredtoservethatinterest."In  reProvidenceJournalCo.,293F.3d1,11(1stCir.2002)(citing p  PressEnterprisev.SuperiorCourt,464U.S.501,510(1984) !l" ("PressEnterpriseI")). "$   I. t$& ?A.TheJudicialCharacteroftheDocuments  &p!(  ` Documentsgeneratedinthecourseofajudicial '#* proceedingmustbe"judicial"documentstotriggeracommonlaw x)$, presumptionofaccess.Thisjudicialcharacterisalsoanecessary $+t&. butnotsufficientconditiontoestablishaqualifiedrightof  accessundertheFirstAmendment.SeeProvidenceJournal,293F.3d \ at910.Thus,theBostonHeraldhasnoclaimofaccessto X materialsclassifiedas"administrative"documents.SeeElDia,   Inc.v.HernndezCol;n,963F.2d488,495(1stCir.1992);FTCv. `  StandardFin.Mgmt.Corp.,830F.2d404,408(1stCir.1987).  \  Therefore,IfirstaddressthequestionofwhethertheCJA   eligibilityformsarejudicialdocuments. d   ` 1.TheRoleofJudgesintheEligibilityInquiry `   ` TheCJAanticipatestheinvolvementofa"UnitedStates   magistratejudgeorthecourt"innearlyeveryphaseofthe h appointmentprocess,includingthegenerationofaplanfor d furnishingrepresentation,18U.S.C.3006A(a),thedetermination  ofwhetherappointmentofcounselisappropriate,18U.S.C. l 3006A(b),thedeterminationofthedurationofappointments,18 h U.S.C.3006A(c),thewaiverofthemaximumcompensationrates  whenjusticedemands,18U.S.C.3006A(d)(3),thepublic p  disclosureoftheamountspaidtoappointedcounsel,18U.S.C. !l" 3006A(d)(4),andtheauthorizationofreimbursementfor "$ investigative,expert,orotherservicesdeemednecessaryfor t$& adequaterepresentation,18U.S.C.3006A(e)(1).Indeed,the  &p!( regulationspromulgatedtoimplementtheCJAexplicitlystatethat '#* "[t]hedeterminationofeligibilityforrepresentationunderthe x)$, CriminalActisajudicialfunctiontobeperformedbyafederal $+t&. judgeormagistrateaftermakingappropriateinquiriesconcerning  theperson'sfinancialcondition."VIIAdministrativeOfficeof \ theUnitedStatesCourts'GuidetoJudiciaryPoliciesand X Procedures(hereinafter"A.O.Guide")2.03(2001)(emphasis   added). `   ` Congress'sdecisiontodelegatethisauthority  \  exclusivelytojudgesisnotsurprisingensuringthatcriminal   defendantsreceivethefullbenefitsoftheSixthAmendment's d  guaranteeofeffectiveassistanceofcounselhasalwaysbeenthe `  uniqueprovinceofthejudiciary.Judgesarerequired,interalia,   toestablishthatcriminaldefendantswhoproceedprosehave h knowinglyandintelligentlywaivedtheirrighttocounsel,see d UnitedStatesv.Manjarrez,306F.3d1175,1179(1stCir.2002),to  appointcounselwhoareappropriately"learnedinthelaw"to l representdefendantsfacingcapitalcharges,UnitedStatesv. h Miranda,148F.Supp.2d292(S.D.N.Y.2001),andtoexempt  applicantsfromthestatutoryrequirementoffilingaCJAForm23 p  wheredoingsowouldprejudicethedefendant'sotherconstitutional !l" rights,seeUnitedStatesv.Gravatt,868F.2d585,589(3dCir. "$ 1989)(reversingtrialcourt'sdenialofrequestforappointed t$& counselwhereapplicantwaschargedwithtaxevasionandrefusedto  &p!( completetheCJAForm23ongroundsthatitwouldbeself '#* incriminating);UnitedStatesv.Moore,671F.2d139,141(5thCir. x)$, 1982),cert.denied,464U.S.859(1983)(same);UnitedStatesv. $+t&. Anderson,567F.2d839,840(8thCir.1977)(same).Thejudicial  characteroftheeligibilityinquirythatdeterminesadefendant's \ SixthAmendmentrighttocounselisnotunderminedbythefactthat X administrativepersonnelareoccasionallyentrustedwithjudgments   thateffectuateconstitutionalrightsinsettingsoutsidethe `  courtroom,whereonewouldnotexpectjudgestorenderinitial  \  decisions.See,e.g.,Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,10204   (1976)(adjudicatingprisoner'sclaimthatprisondoctorviolated d  EighthAmendmentbyrefusingtoprovideadequatemedicalcare). `   ` Congressalsomandatedthatthejudgeundertakean   individualizedinquiryintoadefendant'sfinancialabilityto h retaincounsel: d 8 ` [T]heUnitedStatesmagistratejudgeorthe  court,ifsatisfiedafterappropriateinquiry  thatthepersonisfinanciallyunableto l obtaincounsel,shallappointcounselto B representhim.Suchappointmentmaybemade h retroactivetoincludeanyrepresentation > furnishedpursuanttotheplanpriorto  appointment.TheUnitedStatesmagistrateor  thecourtshallappointseparatecounselfor p  personshavingintereststhatcannotproperly F ! berepresentedbythesamecounsel,orwhen !l" othergoodcauseisshown.!B#` x` x U18U.S.C.3006A(b)(emphasisadded).Implicitly,thisprovision #% acknowledgestheimportantrelationshipbetweenanapplicant's J% ' financialstatusandthecircumstancesoftheunderlyingcase.An &F") applicantwithmoderateresourcesmayneverthelessqualifyfor (#+ appointedcounselundertheCJAforrepresentationinacomplex N*%- murdertrial,whereasadefendantofconsiderablylessermeansmay +J'/ notbeeligibleforrepresentationinaprosecutionforaless  seriousoffense.Thejudgeconductingthetrialoramagistrate \ judgeequallyfamiliarwiththefactsandproceedingsofthecase X isuniquelypositionedtoassesstheapplicant'sfinancialposition   againstthebackdropofpast,presentandanticipatedexpenditures `  intheunderlyingaction.  \   ` Significantly,theCJAfurtherobligesthejudgeto   continuallyreevaluatetheneedforappointedcounselasthe d  underlyingproceedingprogresses: `  8 ` Ifatanytimeaftertheappointmentof   counseltheUnitedStatesmagistratejudgeor  thecourtfindsthatthepersonisfinancially h abletoobtaincounselortomakepartial > paymentfortherepresentation,itmay d terminatetheappointmentofcounsel,or : authorizepayment...astheinterestsof  justicemaydictate.Ifatanystageofthe  proceedings,includinganappeal,theUnited l Statesmagistratejudgeorthecourtfinds B thatthepersonisfinanciallyunabletopay h counselwhomhehadretained,itmayappoint > counsel...andauthorizepayment...as  theinterestsofjusticemaydictate.The  UnitedStatesmagistratejudgeorthecourt p  may,intheinterestsofjustice,substitute F ! oneappointedcounselforanotheratanystage !l" oftheproceedings.!B#` x` x 7]18U.S.C.3006A(c).UndertheCJA,administrativepersonnel #% assistmagistrateanddistrictjudgesinrenderingeligibility J% ' determinationsbygeneratingCJAforms,acceptingserviceofCJA &F") applicationmaterials,andhelping"toobtainorverifythefacts (#+ uponwhich[theeligibility]determinationistobemade."VII N*%- A.O.Guide2.03(B).However,theseindividualslackthe +J'/ expertisetoweigh"theinterestsofjustice"whenconsidering  whethertoapproveorwithdrawanappointmentatanintermittent \ stageintheproceedings,andwouldalsobehardpressedto X continuouslymonitorthedevelopmentsintheunderlyingcase.   TheserealitiesreinforcethewisdomofCongress'sdecisionto `  reposeCJAdecisionmakingauthorityinjudges.  \  0 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` 2.0 (# (#TheRoleofCJAForm23Informationinthe   EligibilityInquiry  (# (# e `  ` Whilethecriticalrolethatjudgesplayinthe :  eligibilityinquiryevincesthejudicialcharacterofthedocuments 6 theyrelyupon,thedispositivesignificanceofthosedocuments  furtherenhancestheir"judicial"status.InUnitedStatesv. > Amodeo,44F.3d141(2dCir.1995)("AmodeoI"),theSecondCircuit : establishedthefollowingfunctionaldefinitionof"judicial  document":"Wethinkthattheitemfiledmustberelevanttothe B performanceofthejudicialfunctionandusefulinthejudicial > processinorderforittobedesignatedajudicialdocument."Id.  at145.Z A  9      ׀ThisdefinitiondistinguishesCJAeligibilityformsfrom F ! otherdocumentsgeneratedinjudicialproceedings,suchas  materialsproducedduringdiscovery,thatcourtsareoften \ reluctanttoclassifyas"judicialdocuments": X 8 ` [I]tmustberecognizedthatanabundanceof   statementsanddocumentsgeneratedinfederal   litigationactuallyhavelittleornobearing `  ontheexerciseofArticleIIIjudicialpower. 6   Therelevanceorreliabilityofastatementor  \  documentcannotbedetermineduntilheardor  2  readbycounsel,and,ifnecessary,bythe   courtorotherjudicialofficer.Asaresult,   thetemptationtoleavenostoneunturnedin d  thesearchforevidencematerialtoajudicial :  proceedingturnsupavastamountofnotonly `  irrelevantbutalsounreliablematerial. 6 Unlimitedaccesstoeveryitemturnedupin   thecourseoflitigationwouldbeunthinkable.  Reputationswouldbeimpaired,personal h relationshipsruined,andbusinessesdestroyed > onthebasisofmisleadingordownrightfalse d information.k:` x` x UnitedStatesv.Amodeo,71F.3d1044,104849(2dCir.1995)  ("AmodeoII");seeSeattleTimesCo.v.Rhinehart,467U.S.20,33 B (1984);Andersonv.Cryovac,Inc.,805F.2d1,13(1stCir.1986). > Yettherelevanceandreliabilityvexationsafflictingthe  discoveryprocessareinapplicabletoCJAeligibilityinformation, F ! whichis(1)submittedunderpenaltyofperjuryandthus !B# presumptivelyreliable,and(2)singularlyrelevanttothecourt's #% determinationofwhetheranapplicantisentitledtoappointed J% ' counsel.SeeUnitedStatesv.Salemme,985F.Supp.197,201(D.  Mass.1997)("Typically,theCJA23formoffinancialaffidavit. \ ..isusedtodeterminewhetheradefendantiseligibleforthe X appointmentofcounsel.").   0 ` 0 ` (#` (# ` 3.0 (# (#TheNarrowScopeofthe"AdministrativeDocument" `  Exceptionit6   (# (#  ` Thecriticalrolethatjudgesplayintheeligibility  2  determination,coupledwiththesignificanceofthefinancial   documentsthemselvestothatdetermination,counselstronglyin :  favorofclassifyingtheeligibilityformsasjudicialdocuments. 6 Themajoritysuggests,however,thattheCJAeligibilityformsfall  outsidethecategoryofjudicialdocumentsbyvirtueoftheir > "administrative"character,characterizingthedocumentsas : "administrativepaperworkgeneratedaspartofaministerial  processancillarytotrial."Yetwe,alongwiththeSecond B Circuit,haverecognizedthatcourtsactattheapexoftheir > ArticleIIIpowerwhenevertheyconductproceedingsthatdetermine  thesubstantiverightsoflitigants:"[T]hestrongweighttobe F ! accordedthepublicrightofaccesstojudicialdocuments[is] !B# largelyderivedfromtherolethosedocumentsplay[]indetermining #% litigants'substantiverightsconductattheheartofArticle J% ' IIIandfromtheneedforpublicmonitoringofthatconduct." &F") AmodeoII,71F.3dat1049;seeProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat9 (#+  10("[T]hecommonlawrightofaccessextendsto'materialson N*%- whichacourtreliesindeterminingthelitigants'substantive  rights.'"(quotingCryovac,805F.2dat13)). \   ` Thus,courtsmayactpursuanttotheirArticleIII X authorityinproceedingsantecedenttoacriminaltrialevenwhen   theyaddressmattersthatareperipheraltothemeritsofthe `  underlyingdispute.Cf.ProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat10("The  \  constitutionalrightofaccess[tojudicialrecords]isnotlimited   totheactualtrialitself,butalsoencompassesmostpretrial d  proceedings.").TheSupremeCourtacknowledgedasmuchinPress `  EnterpriseI,rulingthataqualifiedrightofpublicaccess   attachedtothetranscriptofthevoirdireexaminationof h potentialjurorsinacriminaltrial.SeePressEnterpriseI,464 d U.S.at501.Indeed,weruledinStandardFinancialthatacommon  lawrightofpublicaccessattachedtofinancialdocumentsthata l districtcourtreviewedindeterminingwhethertoapproveaconsent h decreebetweentheFederalTradeCommissionandacorporation  accusedofengagingindeceptivemarketingpractices.Standard p  Financial,830F.2dat405.Becausethecourthadconditionally !l" approvedtheconsentdecreebeforeexaminingthedocumentsin "$ question,theplaintiffsarguedthat"thestatementscouldnothave t$& beencourtrecordsuponwhich[thejudge]reliedinthe  &p!( adjudicatoryprocess."Id.at408.Wedisagreed,findingthatthe '#*  plaintiffs'argument"takestoorestrictiveaviewofwhat x)$, constitutesacourtrecordforthepurposeofallowingpublic  access."Id.at408. \   ` Here,theCJAeligibilityformsaremoreproximately X connectedtoacourt'sdeterminationofsubstantiverightsthan   eitherthevoirdiretranscriptinPressEnterpriseIorthe `  financialdocumentssubmittedtogainapprovalforaconsentdecree  \  inStandardFinancial.Asathresholdmatter,theeligibility   inquirydeterminesanapplicant'ssubstantiverighttocounsel d  underboththeSixthAmendmentandtheCJAitself,totheextent `  thatparticularcourtsmayexpandtheirconceptionoffinancial   needsuchthatthestatutoryandconstitutionalstandardsarenot h coextensive.Moreover,thisinquiryoccurswithinthesame d adversarialsettingthattypifiesotherjudicialdeterminationsof  substantiverights.SeeUnitedStatesv.Coniam,574F.Supp.615, l 617(D.Conn.1983)("Theroleofthegovernmentinrelationtothe h utilizationoftheCJAappropriationfortheguaranteeof  defendant'srights,whilenowherespecified,isnonetheless p  appropriatelyinvitedbytheapprovalofanadversarialprocessby !l" whichtoinsuretheproprietyofdefendant'sreceiptofservicesof "$ counselundertheCJA.")(citingUnitedStatesv.Harris,707F.2d t$& 653,662(2dCir.1983)).Thus,thegovernmentisentitledand  &p!( encouragedtocontestCJAappointmentsforapplicantsitdeems '#* unworthy,seeUnitedStatesv.Hickey,997F.Supp.1206,1207 x)$, (N.D.Cal.1998);UnitedStatesv.Herbawi,913F.Supp.170,173 $+t&. (W.D.N.Y.1996),andtoactivelydefendacourt'sdecisiontodeny  appointedcounselifthespurnedapplicantchallengesthedecision \ onappeal,seeUnitedStatesv.Lefkowitz,125F.3d608,621(8th X Cir.1997);Harris,707F.2dat66062.    ` UnderConnolly'snarrowerconceptionofArticleIII,a `  courtonlyexercisesArticleIIIpowertoresolvethemeritsofthe  \  underlyingcaseorcontroversy:"ArticleIIIfunctionsi.e.,   theadjudicationoffederalcasesandcontroversiesarethose d  whichtheConstitutionassignsuniquelytothefederalcourts." `  Theapplicationofthisrulewouldhavetheoddresultofcreating   aqualifiedrightofpublicaccesstoonlythosefinancial h affidavitsthatbecomethesubjectofanappeal,wherethe d applicant'sfinancialinformationwouldbeinextricablylinkedwith  themeritsintheappellateproceeding.Thesuppositionthata l bonafidepublicinterestinCJAeligibilityonlymaterializesif h andwhenapartyappealsthecourt'sinitialeligibility  determinationisdifficulttoharmonizewiththeprinciples p  underlyingthecommonlawpresumptionofaccesstojudicial !l" documents: "$ 8 ` Thepresumptionofaccessisbasedontheneed t$& forfederalcourts,althoughindependent J% ' indeed,particularlybecausetheyare  &p!( independenttohaveameasureof &F") accountabilityandforthepublictohave '#* confidenceintheadministrationofjustice. (#+ ...Althoughcourtshaveanumberof x)$, internalchecks,suchasappellatereviewby N*%- multijudgetribunals,professionalandpublic $+t&. monitoringisanessentialfeatureof +J'/ democraticcontrol.Monitoringbothprovides  judgeswithcriticalviewsoftheirworkand  detersarbitraryjudicialbehavior.Without \ monitoring,moreover,thepubliccouldhaveno 2 confidenceintheconscientiousness, X reasonableness,orhonestyofjudicial . proceedings. ` x` x OAmodeoII,71F.3dat1048.Theimportanceofthismonitoring `  functiondoesnotfluctuatebetweenanoriginalandappellate  \  proceedingundertheCJA,andthereforeanyrulethatpurportsto   confinetheArticleIIIimprimaturtodocumentsthatdirectly d  informtheadjudicationoftheunderlyingcaseorcontroversyis `  undulynarrow.    ` Iacknowledgethatadministrativepersonnelplayan h importantsupportingroleintheeligibilityinquirypriortothe d judicialdeterminationofeligibility.Nevertheless,the  administrativefeaturesoftheeligibilityinquirydonoterodethe l fundamentalArticleIIIcharacterofCJAeligibilityforms,thereby h transformingtheminto"administrative"documents.Exceptingthe  decisionoftheTenthCircuitinUnitedStatesv.Gonzalez,150 p  F.3d1246(10thCir.1998),nocourttomyknowledgehasinvoked !l" thejudicial/administrativedistinctiontocarvean "$ "administrative"exceptiontothepresumptivelyjudicialcharacter t$& ofdocumentsthatmustbefiledwiththecourtasarequiredbasis  &p!( forjudicialdecisionmaking.Indeed,manyjurisdictionssimply '#*  accord"judicialdocument"statustoallmaterialsfiledwiththe x)$, court,regardlessoftheparticularjudicialfunctionforwhichthe  documentsarerelevant.Seesupra. \    ` Totheextentthatsomecourtshavefashioneda X distinctionbetween"judicial"and"administrative"documents,this   distinctionhasbeencastininstitutionaltermsandemployed `  narrowlytoshieldstateandfederalexecutivebranchmaterials  \  fromthepresumptionofaccessaccordeddocumentsinjudicial   proceedings.Thus,inElDia,weupheldanexecutiveorderissued d  bythegovernorofPuertoRicolimitingaccesstodocuments `  detailinghisoffislandtravelexpenses,observingthat"[w]hile   theSupremeCourthasrecognizedaqualifiedFirstAmendmentright h ofaccesstorecordsandproceedingsconnectedtothecriminal d justicesystem...theCourthasneverrecognizedacorresponding  rightofaccesstoExecutiveBranchdocuments."ElDia,963F.2d l at49495(internalcitationsomitted).Similarly,theSupreme h CourtrefusedtoextendFirstAmendmentprotectiontomembersof  themediaattemptingtophotographandtouracountyjailwherean p  inmatehadrecentlycommittedsuicide,purportedlyinresponseto !l" deterioratingconditionsattheprison.Houchinsv.KQED,Inc., "$ 438U.S.1,3(1978).Accordingtotheplurality: t$& 8 ` NeithertheFirstAmendmentnortheFourteenth  &p!( Amendmentmandatesarightofaccessto &F") governmentinformationorsourcesof '#* informationwithinthegovernment'scontrol. (#+ ..[U]ntilthepoliticalbranchesdecree x)$, otherwise,astheyarefreetodo,themedia N*%-  havenospecialrightofaccesstothe[jail] $+t&. differentfromorgreaterthanthataccorded  thepublicgenerally.` x` x  Id.at1516.Thebroadinstitutionalandpoliticalconsiderations 2 thatinformedthedecisionsinElDaandHouchinsarenot . implicatedbymediarequestsforthefinancialinformationfiledby   CJAapplicantsinthemidstofacriminalproceeding.Indeed, 6   thesedocumentscouldnotbeconsidered"informationwithinthe  2  government'scontrol"asthatphraseisusedinHouchins.Id.at   15. :   ` Althoughthepublic'srightofaccesstojudicial 6 documentsunderthecommonlawandtheFirstAmendment"arenot  coterminous,courtshaveemployedmuchthesametypeofscreenin > evaluatingtheirapplicabilitytoparticularclaims."Providence : Journal,293F.3dat10.However,thereareimportantdifferences  betweenthetworightsofaccess: B 8 ` Thedistinctionbetweentherightsaffordedby > thefirstamendmentandthoseaffordedbythe  commonlawissignificant.Afirstamendment  rightofaccesscanbedeniedonlybyproofof p  a"compellinggovernmentalinterest"andproof F ! thatthedenialis"narrowlytailoredtoserve !l" thatinterest."GlobeNewspaper[Co.v. !B# Super.Ct.],457U.S.[596],606[(1982)].In "$ contrast,underthecommonlawthedecisionto #% grantordenyaccessis"lefttothesound t$& discretionofthetrialcourt,adiscretionto J% ' beexercisedinlightoftherelevantfacts  &p!( andcircumstancesoftheparticularcase." &F") Nixonv.WarnerCommunications,Inc.,435U.S. '#* 589,599(1978).(#+` x` x   x)$, [BaltimoreSun,886F.2dat64.Accordingly,Iproceedtoevaluate  thescopeofthepublicrightofaccesstotheConnollyjudicial \ documentsunderboththecommonlawandtheFirstAmendment. X  B.ThePresumptionofPublicAccessUndertheCommonLaw   Ѐ ` Thedeterminationthatparticulardocumentsare `  "judicial"documentsipsofactoestablishesapresumptiverightof  \  publicaccessunderthecommonlaw:"Courtslonghaverecognized   thatpublicmonitoringofthejudicialsystemfosterstheimportant d  valuesofquality,honestyandrespectforourlegalsystem.This `  recognitionhasgivenrisetoapresumptionthatthepublichasa   commonlawrightofaccesstojudicialdocuments."Providence h Journal,293F.3dat9(internalcitationsomitted)."This d presumptiverightofaccessattachestothosematerials'which  properlycomebeforethecourtinthecourseofanadjudicatory l proceedingandwhicharerelevanttothatadjudication.'"Id. h (quotingStandardFinancial,830F.2dat41213(1stCir.1987)).  However,notallpresumptionsofaccessarecreatedequal: p  8 ` Webelievethattheweighttobegiventhe !l" presumptionofaccessmustbegovernedbythe !B# roleofthematerialatissueintheexercise "$ ofArticleIIIjudicialpowerandthe #% resultantvalueofsuchinformationtothose t$& monitoringthefederalcourts.Generally,the J% ' informationwillfallsomewhereonacontinuum  &p!( frommattersthatdirectlyaffectan &F") adjudicationtomattersthatcomewithina '#* court'spurviewsolelytoinsuretheir (#+ irrelevance.x)$,` x` x  L N*%- AmodeoII,71F.3dat1049.Here,theCJAForm23information   unmistakablyfallsonthe"strongpresumption"endoftheArticle \ IIIcontinuum.Whilethejudgeconductingtheeligibilityinquiry X hasthediscretiontoconsiderotherfactors,suchasthenatureof   theproceedingforwhichthedefendantseeksappointedcounsel,the `  applicant'sfinancialstatusis,forobviousreasons,oftheutmost  \  importancetothecourt.Inmanycases,thefinancialdocuments   maybetheonlyevidencesubmittedintheeligibilityproceeding, d  aconsiderationthatsignificantlystrengthensthecommonlaw `  presumptionofaccess:"Judicialrecordsarepresumptivelysubject   topublicinspection....[T]hepresumptionisatitsstrongest h whenthedocumentinquestion,ashere,hasbeensubmittedasa d basisforjudicialdecisionmaking."GreaterMiamiBaseballClub  Ltd.v.Selig,955F.Supp.37,39(S.D.N.Y.1997)(citingJoyv. l North,692F.2d880,893(2dCir.1982)). h  ` Whilethecaselawsupportstherecognitionofacommon  lawpresumptionofaccesstoConnolly'seligibilityforms,the p  magistratejudgestatedinhisdecisionthat"the[CJA]statuteand !l" regulations...supercedethecommonlawrightifoneexisted." "$ (citingGonzalez,150F.3dat1263).Thatsweepingassertionmust t$& bemeasuredagainstfamiliarstandards.InUnitedStatesv.Texas,  &p!( 507U.S.529(1993),theSupremeCourtrecognizedthe '#* 8 ` longstanding...principlethat"statutes x)$, whichinvadethecommonlawaretoberead N*%- withapresumptionfavoringtheretentionof $+t&. longestablishedandfamiliarprinciples, +J'/ exceptwhenastatutorypurposetothe  contraryisevident."Insuchcases,Congress  doesnotwriteuponacleanslate.Inorder \ toabrogateacommonlawprinciple,the 2 statutemust"speakdirectly"tothequestion X addressedbythecommonlaw..` x` x Id.at529(internalcitationsomitted).Accordingly,underwell   settledprinciplesofstatutoryconstruction,courtswillnot 6   construeastatuteasderogativeofthecommonlawunlessCongress  2  explicitlyarticulatesthatintent:   8 ` Thecourtshaveconsistentlyheldlegislation :  derogativeofthecommonlawaccountabletoan `  exactnessofexpression,andhavenotallowed 6 theeffectsofsuchlegislationtobeextended   beyondthenecessaryandunavoidablemeaning  ofitsterms.Thepresumptionrunsagainst h suchinnovation.Thisismerelyafamiliar > principleofstatutoryconstruction.d` x` x Scharfeldv.Richardson,133F.2d340,341(D.C.Cir.1942).   ` ThelanguageoftheCJAreflectsCongress'ssensitivity l tothesebackgroundprinciples.WhereCongressidentifiedaneed h topreserveconfidentialityduringtheCJAappointmentprocess,it  expresslydidsothroughstatutoryprovisionsnarrowlyaddressedto p  particulardocumentsandproceedings.See18U.S.C.3006A(d)(4) !l" (directingcourtstodelayorlimitthedisclosureofpayment "$ informationwheredoingsowouldundermineinteraliathe t$& defendant'sconstitutionalrights,theattorneyclientprivilege,  &p!( ortheworkproductprivilege);18U.S.C.3006A(e)(authorizing '#* courtstoapprovepaymentfor"investigative,expert,orother x)$, servicesnecessaryforadequaterepresentation....[u]pon $+t&. finding,afterappropriateinquiryinanexparteproceeding,that  theservicesarenecessaryandthatthepersonisfinancially \ unabletoobtainthem")(emphasisadded).\ A  10       X  ` Bycontrast,neitherthestatutenortheA.O.Guide   refersspecificallytotheconfidentialityordisclosureofCJA `  Form23information,whichordinarilydoesnotimplicatea  \  defendant'sFifthAmendmentrights.^ A  11      Instead,theimplementing   regulationspromulgatedbytheAdministrativeOfficeofU.S.Courts d  establishageneralpresumptionofdisclosurethatencompassesthe `  CJAprocessesanddocumentsthatdonotreceiveindividualized   treatmentinthestatuteitself: h 8 ` Generally,suchinformation[pertainingto d activitiesundertheCriminalJusticeActand : relatedstatutes]whichisnototherwise  routinelyavailabletothepublicshouldbe  madeavailableunlessitisjudiciallyplaced \ underseal,orcouldreasonablybeexpectedto 2 undulyintrudeupontheprivacyofattorneys X ordefendants;compromisedefensestrategies, . investigativeprocedures,attorneywork   product,theattorneyclientrelationshipor   privilegedinformationprovidedbythe `  defendantorothersources;orotherwise 6   adverselyaffectthedefendant'srighttothe  \  effectiveassistanceofcounsel,afairtrial,  2  oranimpartialadjudication. ` x` x A.O.Guide5.01(A)(emphasisadded).Thisprovisionofthe :  guidelines,whichcontrolswhereCongressdoesnotbarthe 6 disclosureofparticularCJAmaterialswithan"exactnessof  expression,"seeScharfeld,133F.2dat341,isessentiallya > regulatorycodificationofthebalancingexercisethatcourts : employonceaqualifiedpublicrightofaccesshasattachedto  judicialdocumentsunderthecommonlaw.CompareAmodeoII,71 B F.3dat105051,withVIIA.O.Guide5.01(A).Byspecifyingthat > CJAmaterialsshouldbereleasedunlessthematerials"unduly  intrudeupontheprivacyofattorneysordefendants,"A.O.Guide F ! 5.01(A)(emphasisadded),theregulationssignaljudgesthatthe !B# magnitudeoftheintrusionmustbeweighedagainstthebenefitsof #% publicdisclosure.Accordingly,thelawandtheguidelinesappear J% ' nottopreempt,butrathertoratify,acommonlawpresumptionof &F") accesstotheinformationatissuehere. (#+   N*%- C.ThePublicRightofAccessUndertheFirstAmendment   ` InPressEnterprisev.SuperiorCourt,478U.S.1(1986) \ (PressEnterpriseII),theSupremeCourtarticulatedthetestfor X determiningwhenaFirstAmendmentrightofpublicaccessattaches   tojudicialdocuments: `  8 `  Incasesdealingwiththeclaimofa  \  FirstAmendmentrightofaccesstocriminal  2  proceedings,ourdecisionshaveemphasizedtwo   complementaryconsiderations.First,because   a"traditionofaccessibilityimpliesthe d  favorablejudgmentofexperiences,"wehave :  consideredwhethertheplaceandprocesshave `  historicallybeenopentothepressand 6 generalpublic[the"experience"prong]. ` x` x  `  ....  8 `  Second,inthissettingtheCourthas h traditionallyconsideredwhetherpublicaccess > playsasignificantpositiveroleinthe d functioningoftheparticularprocessin : question[the"logic"prong].` x` x OPressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at89(internalquotationmarks l omitted)._ A  12      ׀WhileConnollycontendsthatbothprongsofthis h !OY= ! !  standardmustbesatisfiedforaqualifiedFirstAmendmentrightof  publicaccesstoattach,atleasttwocourtshaverecognizeda \ qualifiedFirstAmendmentrighttoCJAmaterialsonthestrengthof X the"logic"prongalone.SeeUnitedStatesv.Suarez,880F.2d   626,631(2dCir.1989);UnitedStatesv.Ellis,154F.R.D.692, `  696(M.D.Fl.1993).AstheSecondCircuitobservedinSuarez:  \  8 ` Itistruethatthereisnolong"traditionof   accessibility"toCJAforms.However,thatis   becausetheCJAitselfis,intermsof d  "tradition,"afairlyrecentdevelopment, :  havingbeenenactedin1964....Thelack `  of"tradition"withrespecttotheCJAforms 6 doesnotdetractfromthepublic'sstrong   interestinhowitsfundsarebeingspentin  theadministrationofcriminaljusticeand h whatamountsofpublicfundsarepaidto > particularprivateattorneysorfirms.d` x` x Suarez,880F.2dat631.Thislackoftraditionforcriminal  proceedingsofrecentoriginplacesintervenorsliketheBoston l Heraldintheawkwardpositionofanalogizingthedocumentsor h proceedingsatissuetomaterialsorproceedingswithtraditionsof  accessibility.Suchanalogiescanbeusefulbutnotdecisive. p  Theyareinevitablyassailableongroundsthatthecomparisonis !l" imperfect,orthatapplicationofthetraditionwouldprovetoo "$ much.Intheendthereisnosoundreasontoexcludecriminal t$& proceedingsofrecentoriginfromthereachoftheFirstAmendment  simplybecausetheycannotmatchthelineageofproceedingsthat \ havelongbeenpartofthecriminalprocess.PressEnterpriseII, X 478U.S.at8.   Ѐ ` Inexplainingthelogicprong,theSupremeCourthas `  recognizedthattherightofaccesstojudicialproceedings  \  8 ` playsaparticularlysignificantroleinthe   functioningofthejudicialprocessandthe   governmentasawhole.Publicscrutinyofa d  criminaltrialenhancesthequalityand :  safeguardstheintegrityofthefactfinding `  process,withbenefitstoboththedefendant 6 andtosocietyasawhole.Moreover,public   access...fostersanappearanceof  fairness,therebyheighteningrespectforthe h judicialprocess.Andinthebroadestterms, > publicaccesstocriminaltrialspermitsthe d publictoparticipateinandserveasacheck : uponthejudicialprocessanessential  componentinourstructureofselfgovernment.` x` x xGlobeNewspaper,457U.S.at606.InUnitedStatesv.Suarez,880 B F.2d626(2dCir.1989),theSecondCircuitdeterminedthatthe > benefitsofpublicscrutinyoutlinedinGlobeNewspaperapplywith  equalforcetotheCJAappointmentprocess: F ! 8 ` Becausethereisnopersuasivereasonto !B# ignorethepresumptionofopennessthat "$ appliestodocumentssubmittedinconnection #% withacriminalproceeding,weconcludethat t$& thepublichasaqualifiedFirstAmendment J% ' rightofaccesstotheCJAformsafterpayment  &p!( hasbeenapproved.&F")` x` x Id.at631.V A  13      ׀ (#+  ` AsIreadtheprecedents,theSupremeCourtdidnot  intendthelogicprongtolimitthereachoftheFirstAmendment \ onlytothosejudicialprocessesthatwouldrealizeefficiencyand X accuracygainsinthe"sunshine"ofpublicaccess.Onthe   contrary,RichmondNewspapers,Inc.v.Virginia,448U.S.555,569 `  (1980),anditsprogeny,seePressEnterpriseI,464U.S.at505;  \  GlobeNewspaper,457U.S.at606,suggestthatthebenefits   accruingtosocietyfromarightofpublicaccesstojudicial d  documentsandproceedingsareassumedprimafacieunderthelogic `  prong.Accordingly,asthelanguageofPressEnterpriseII   suggests,satisfactionofthelogicprongturnsonthenarrower h questionofwhetherpublicdisclosurewoulddefeatthepurposeof d thespecificjudicialprocessatissue:  8 ` Second,inthissettingtheCourthas l traditionallyconsideredwhetherpublicaccess B playsasignificantpositiveroleinthe h functioningoftheparticularprocessin > question.Althoughmanygovernmentprocesses  operatebestunderpublicscrutiny,ittakes  littleimaginationtorecognizethatthereare p  somekindsofgovernmentoperationsthatwould F ! betotallyfrustratedifconductedopenly.A !l" classicexampleisthat"theproper !B# functioningofourgrandjurysystemdepends "$ uponthesecrecyofgrandjuryproceedings."#%` x` x PressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at89(quotingDouglasOilCo.v. J% ' PetrolStopsN.W.,441U.S.211,218(1979)).TheNinthCircuit &F") echoedthisthemeinTimesMirrorCo.v.UnitedStates,873F.2d  1210(9thCir.1989): \ 8 ` Everyjudicialproceeding,indeedevery X governmentalprocess,arguablybenefitsfrom . publicscrutinytosomedegree,inthat   opennessleadstoabetterinformedcitizenry   andtendstodetergovernmentofficialsfrom `  abusingthepowersofgovernment.... 6   Certainly,thepublic'sinterestinself  \  governanceandpreventionofabuseofofficial  2  powerwouldbeservedtosomedegreeifgrand   juryproceedingswereopened.Thesamemight   besaidofjurydeliberationsandtheinternal d  communicationsofthiscourt.Butbecausethe :  integrityandindependenceofthese `  proceedingsarethreatenedbypublic 6 disclosures,claimsof"improvedself   governance"and"thepromotionoffairness"  cannotbeusedasanincantationtoopenthese h proceedingstothepublic.>` x` x Id.at1213(internalcitationsomitted). :  ` Thenatureanddegreeof"proceduralfrustration"  requiredtoremoveaclassofjudicialdocumentssubmittedina B criminalcasefromFirstAmendmentscrutinyhasbeenwell > documentedbycourtsadjudicatingpetitionstopubliclydisclose  thepresentencereportsofconvicteddefendants.Asthe F ! jurisprudenceinthisareaillustrates,thethreeprimaryparties !B# toeverycriminalproceedingthedefendant,thegovernmentand #% thejudgehavedifferinginterestsinmaintainingthe J% ' confidentialityofcertainjudicialdocuments.Thedefendant's &F") interestisoftenprivacybased,asnotedinthecontextof (#+ presentencereports:"Thecriminaldefendanthasastronginterest N*%- inmaintainingtheconfidentialityofhisorherpresentencereport +J'/ ...thepresentenceinvestigationofteninvolvesabroadranging  inquiryintoadefendant'sprivatelife,notlimitedbytraditional \ rulesofevidence."UnitedStatesv.Corbitt,879F.2d224,230 X (7thCir.1989).    ` Confidentialityservesadifferentfunctionforcourts. `  Theaccuracyandfairnessofjudicialdeterminationsdependsin  \  largepartontheinformativevalueofthejudicialdocuments   submittedtothecourt.Totheextentthatpublicdisclosureof d  presentencereportswouldcreatedisincentivesforthedefendant, `  thegovernmentorindependentthirdpartiestoprovideinformation   thatwouldaidthecourt'sdetermination,recognizingapublic h rightofaccessundertheFirstAmendmentcouldunderminethe d sentencingprocess.AstheSeventhCircuitobserved:"[R]equiring  disclosureofapresentencereportiscontrarytothepublic l interestasitwouldadverselyaffectthesentencingcourt's h abilitytoobtaindataonaconfidentialbasisfromtheaccusedand  fromsourcesindependentoftheaccusedforuseinthesentencing p  process."UnitedStatesv.Greathouse,484F.2d805,807(7thCir. !l" 1973). "$  ` Finally,thegovernmentmayaskcourtstosealdocuments t$& thatcontaininformationaboutconfidentialinformants,revealthe  &p!( strategiesemployedbythepolicetoapprehendcriminals,or '#*  otherwiseunderminelawenforcementobjectives.InCorbitt,the x)$, SeventhCircuitenumeratedthegovernment'sinterestsin  maintainingtheconfidentialityofpresentencereports: \  8 ` Thepresentencereportwilloftencontain X informationregardingthedefendant'spastor . futurecooperationwiththegovernment.The   reportmayalsoincludeinformationconveyed   byinformantsorcooperatingcodefendants `  regardingthedefendant'srelativeculpability 6   fortheoffenseforwhichhehasbeen  \  convicted,andthedefendant'sinvolvementin  2  othercrimeswhichmaybeunderinvestigation.   Especiallywherethedefendantwasamemberof   anorganized,ongoingcriminalenterprise, d  disclosuremayposeasubstantialriskof :  retaliationagainstthedefendant.... `  Thereforewidespreaddisclosureofthe 6 presentencereportmayobstructthe   government'sabilitytoinvestigatecrimes.` x` x Corbitt,879F.2dat235.Intoto,thesemisgivingsmirrorthe > concernsthatledcourtstoshieldgrandjuryproceedingsfrom : publicaccess,id.at232n.8(listingcases),andhavesincebeen  echoedbyothercourtsdecliningtorecognizeaconstitutional B rightofaccesstopresentencereports.SeeUnitedStatesv. > Huckaby,43F.3d135,138(5thCir.1995);UnitedStatesv.  Schlette,842F.2d1574,157981(2dCir.1988). F !  ` Ofalltheillsassociatedwiththedisclosureof !B# presentencereports,onlythedefendant'sinterestinprivacyis #% implicatedbythedisclosureofCJAfinancialaffidavits.Unlike J% ' theprocessofdevelopingpresentencereports,wherethecourtmust &F") castawidenettoretrieveimportantinformationfrommultiple (#+ sources,theCJAeligibilityinquiryreliesprimarilyonthe N*%- defendanttoprovidethecriticalinformation.Accordingly,the +J'/ publicdisclosureofCJAeligibilityinformationwouldnotstifle  aflowofinformationfromdiversesources,asitmightinthe \ presentencereportcontext.Similarly,becausetheCJAForm23is X concernedsolelywiththeapplicant'sfinancialstatus,anddoes   notprovideamediumforexposinggovernmentinformantsor `  revealingothersensitivelawenforcementsecrets,thegovernment  \  hasnovestedinterestinensuringtheconfidentialityofthese   financialaffidavits. d   ` Nonetheless,themajoritypositsthattheCJAappointment `  processisuniquelysusceptibletoprivacybased"frustration,"   reasoningthatprospectiveCJAapplicantswillbedeterredfrom h seekingcourtappointedcounselbytheprospectthattheir d financialaffidavitswillbepubliclydisclosed.However,indigent  criminaldefendantsfacingheftyfines,longincarceration,orboth l areunlikelytoforegotheopportunitytoseekcourtappointed h counseloutofconcernfortheconfidentialityoftheirfinancial  information.` A  14      ׀Intheabsenceofanydiscerniblecourtor p  governmentinterestintheconfidentialityofCJAeligibility  information,themajority'sholdingthatanintrusionintothe \ defendant'sprivacy,withoutmore,"totallyfrustrates"ajudicial X proceeding,seePressEnterpriseII,478U.S.at8,expands   unjustifiablytherangeofjudicialdocumentsandprocedures `  integraltothecriminalprocessbutshieldedfromFirstAmendment  \  scrutiny.an  A  15      ׀Inmyview,Connolly'sprivacyconcernsdonotdefeat   thelogicprongofPressEnterpriseII,andaqualifiedFirst d  Amendmentrightofaccessattachestothefinancialaffidavits.bd A  16      ׀ `    II.  L ` Themajoritystatesinthealternativethat"[e]ven \ assumingthatCJAeligibilitydocumentswerecoveredbyacommon X lawpresumptionofaccess,weshouldstillaffirmthemagistrate   judge'sdecisiontomaintainthesealingofConnolly'sCJA `  applicationmaterials."Insupportofthisposition,themajority  \  citesourdecisioninSiedlev.PutnamInvs.Inc.,147F.3d7(1st   Cir.1998),forthepropositionthat"[t]hetrialcourtenjoys d  considerableleewayinmakingdecisionsofthissort."Id.at10. `  YetinSiedle,westressedthatthesesealingdeterminationsare   onlyentitledtodeferenceiftheyreflectacarefulbalancingof h thecompetinginterestsatstake: d 8 ` [W]henapartyrequestsasealorder,or,as  inthiscase,objectstoanunsealingorder,a  courtmustcarefullybalancethecompeting l intereststhatareatstakeintheparticular B case...Thetrialcourtenjoysconsiderable h leewayinmakingdecisionsofthissort. > Thus,oncethetrialcourthasstruckthe  balance,anappellatecourtwillreviewits  determinationsonlyformistakeoflawor p  abuseofdiscretion.  F !` x` x   Id.at10(emphasisadded). !B#  ` Respectfully,Idonotbelievethatthemagistratejudge   carefullybalancedthecompetinginterestsinthiscase.Thejudge \ expresslydeterminedthat"theBostonHeraldhasnoFirstAmendment X orfederalcommonlawrightofaccesstothedocuments,"and   summarilyconcludedthat"theintrusionontheprivacyofthe `  defendantandthatofhisfamilyifthedocumentswerereleased  \  wouldbeassubstantialnowasitwaswhenthesealingorderswere   entered."Bydecliningtoevenacknowledgeacommonlaw d  presumptionofaccess,themagistratejudgeexcludedanycompeting `  publicinterestsfromthedecisionalcalculus,anddeniedthe   BostonHeraldtherigorousbalancingdeterminationitisentitled h tooncethecommonlawrightattaches.SeeProvidenceJournal,293 d F.3dat11("[O]nlythemostcompellingreasonscanjustifynon  disclosureofjudicialrecordsthatcomewithinthescopeofthe l commonlawrightofaccess.").XZXXXZ h  ` AsProvidenceJournalsuggests,applicationofthecommon  lawpresumptionofaccessimposesaheavyburdenontheparty p  seekingtosealjudicialdocuments.Indeed,#XZXXXZ%#XZXXXZapplying#XZXXXZ:'#XZXXXZthecommon !l" lawstandard,courtshaveunsealedportionsofjudicialdocuments "$ containingarguablymoresensitiveinformationthanthefinancial t$& datarequiredbytheCJAForm23affidavit.InUnitedStatesv.  &p!( Kaczynski,154F.3d930(9thCir.1998),theNinthCircuitupheld '#* thedistrictcourt'sdecisiontounsealredactedportionsof x)$, TheodoreKaczynski'spsychiatriccompetencyreportafterheentered $+t&. aguiltypleainthenotorious"Unabomber"case:"Inbalancingthe  competinginterestsoftheparties,thedistrictcourtdidnot \ abuseitsdiscretion.Itdeterminedthat,astotheunredacted X partofthereport,themedia'sneedfordisclosureoutweighed   Kaczynski'sprivacyinterests."Id.at932.Similarly,inUnited `  Statesv.Huckaby,43F.3d135(5thCir.1995),theFifthCircuit,  \  afteracknowledgingthat"[t]heordinaryconfidentialityof   presentencereportsissupportedbypowerfulpolicy d  considerations,"upheldthetrialcourt'sdisclosureofdefendant's `  presentencereportafterhisconvictionfortaxevasion.Id.at   138140.The"lengthy"reportreflectedanexhaustiveaccounting h ofdefendant'sfinancialrecords,andconcludedthat#XZXXXZ'#XZXXXZHuckabyhad d failedtofilestateandfederalincometaxreturnsforboth  himselfandhisbusiness.Id.Thecourtagreedwiththedistrict l judgethatthestrongpublicinterestinthepresentencereport h warranteddisclosure:  8 ` Thecourthopedthatthereleaseofthe p  [presentencereport]wouldexplainthebasis F ! ofHuckaby'sprosecutionsoastoeliminate !l" anyshadowofdoubtthatthisproceedingwas !B# raciallymotivated.Ratherthanallow "$ bitternesstofesterwithinthecommunityasa #% resultofHuckaby'sguiltypleaandsentence, t$& thecourtdecidedtojuxtaposeagainstthe J% ' rhetoriconHuckaby'sbehalftheseamyreality  &p!( ofhistaxavoidance.&F")` x` x Ѐ#XZXXXZ-#XZXXXZ '#* #XZXXXZ2#L/XZXXXZId.at14041.Wehavealsoupheldthereleaseofcourtdocuments (#+  containingpersonalfinancialinformationsimilartothematerials N*%- atissuehereafterbalancingthepublicinterestunderthecommon  law.SeeStandardFinancial,830F.2dat404.#XZXXXZu2#XZXXXZ \   ` CJAForm23financialinformationmaypresentless X weightyprivacyconcernsthanpsychiatricevaluationsorpre   sentencereports.Moreover,sincethegovernmentmaytheoretically `  challengeajudge'sdecisiontoappointcounselineverycase,see,  \  e.g.,Harris,707F.2dat66062;Hickey,997F.Supp.at1207,   applicantscannotarguethattheyhavealegitimateexpectationof d  privacyintheCJAfinancialinformation,entitlingthemtoprotect `  theirfinancialstatusfrompublicdisclosurethroughoutthe   eligibilityprocess.Tobesure,theprivacyconcernsofCJA h applicantsshouldbeaccordedtheirdueweightbythejudge.So d tooshouldtheconcernsofthirdpartieswhosefinancialtiesto  thedefendantmayexposethemtounwarranteddisclosures.But l theseconcernscanbeeffectivelyaddressedbynarrowlytailored h redactionsofthefinancialaffidavits.Theydonotjustifygiving  shortshrifttothepublic'scompetinginterestinorderto p  prohibitdisclosureentirely.Atbest,themagistratejudgegave !l" inadequateconsiderationtothepublic'sinterestinConnolly's "$ financialaffidavits;therecordmorestronglysuggeststhatthe t$& publicinterestreceivednoconsiderationatall.Therefore,I  &p!( cannotagreewiththedecisiontodefertothemagistratejudge's '#* exerciseofdiscretion,evenonthemajority'sassumptionofa x)$, commonlawpresumptionofaccesstothefinancialaffidavits. $+t&.   III.  ; ` TheCJAeligibilityformsatissuebeareveryhallmarkof \ judicialdocuments:1)theeligibilityproceedingpotentially X occurswithinanadversarialsetting,2)thejudgeplaysacritical   roleintheoutcome,3)thecourtreliesheavilyonthefinancial `  affidavitstoreachitsdecision,and4)theoutcomeofthe  \  proceedingisasubstantivedeterminationoftheapplicant'sSixth   Amendmentrighttocounsel.Theseconsiderationsalonesufficeto d  establishacommonlawpresumptionofaccesstotheeligibility `  forms.BecauseCJAfinancialaffidavitsdonotfallwithinthe   narrowcategoryofjudicialdocumentswhosedisclosurewould h frustratethecorrespondingcriminaljudicialprocess,aFirst d Amendmentrightofaccessattachestothesedocumentsaswell.   ` Underwellestablishedprecedent,adefendant'sprivacy l interestsalonecannotprecludetheattachmentofapublicrightof h accesstojudicialdocumentsinthefirstinstance.Intheabsence  ofthisrightofaccess,judgeshavenearlyunlimiteddiscretionto p  shieldCJAform23affidavitsfrompublicdisclosure.Judges !l" exercisingthisdiscretionwillrarely,ifever,rejectan "$ applicant'sprivacyinterestinpersonalfinancialinformationto t$& vindicateapublicinterestunbackedbythecommonlawortheFirst  &p!( Amendment. '#*  ` IdonotminimizetheimportanceoftheCJAapplicants' x)$, privacyinterestsinthisfinancialinformation.Theseinterests $+t&. deservecarefulconsiderationinthecontextofaconstitutional  balancinganalysis.Therewasnosuchanalysishere.Therefore, \ Irespectfullydisagreewiththemajority'sdecisiontoaffirm. X Instead,Iwouldremandthiscasetothedistrictcourtwith   instructionstoconducttheproperbalancinganalysis.#XZXXXZ4#  `  Xh#84X XdXXd8*$j%ddd Xdd Xdd X,&,&,$$ ,$$ ,#$$ ,e , , ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,e$$ ,$$ ,$$ ,$$ +  Cjj.XX C^X\XXZ.CJA23#XZX\^XL#XXZ Kjj6$Xjj 8K @  @  @  @` #XZXM#ReEQXXZFINANCIALAFFIDAVIT #XZXQReEM#XXZ cjjN/X"  jj8 c#XZX+N#^X\XXZRev.5/98  ԍ1/90)#XZX\^XN#XXZ  Ljj7%Djj 8L#XZX/O#!lXXZINSUPPORTOFREQUESTFORATTORNEY,EXPERTOROTHERCOURTSERVICESWITHOUTPAYMENTOFFEE#XZX!lO#XXZ XN/D"  jj8  X#XZXbP#wƔwXXZ X INUNITEDSTATES#XZXwwƔP#XXZ <2$4  <&    >4"4 >#XZXZQ#^X\XXZMAGISTRATE#XZX\^X0R#XXZ <2$4 <& =3!4 =#XZX|R#^X\XXZDISTRICT#XZX\^X;S#XXZ @6$4  @& @6$4   @#XZXS#^X\XXZAPPEALSCOURTor#XZX\^XKT#XXZ @6$4   @& @6$4  @#XZXT#^X\XXZOTHERPANEL(Specifybelow)#XZX\^XcU#XXZ XN/4    X#XZXU#^X\XXZINTHECASE  ԍOF#XZX\^XZV#XXZ#XZXV#^X\XXZ  A7%l ,A   @    @  @ Fjjjj3$l ,  FLOCATIONNUMBER @6$ljjjj  @ oj\=lj    o @6$, j @FOR <2$, < Djj3!, D#XZX\^XV# cXXZ , #XZX cY#^X\XXZ ZjG5Pjj  Z Ij6$, j  I VjjE&,   j V @6$D"jj @#XZX\^XY#XXZ  V.S  ԍ.#XZXZ[#^X\XXZ  Hj7%D  H Ij6$D"j   I Ijj6$D j I <2$D"jj < =3!D =#XZX\^X[# cXXZ @j-D  @#XZX cY]#^X\XXZ  Ij6$D  j  I XjE&D   j  X @6$  j @AT <2$! < =3!" =#XZX\^X]# cXXZ @jj-" @#XZX c_#^X\XXZ Ijj6$#jj I VjjE&#  jj V Ij6$l$"jj  I Ijj6$l% j I @6$l&"jj  @ @. #XZX\^X`# cXXZ @. #XZX ca#^X\XXZ XN/l'    <X ]jjN/,(  <  ] <2$4 ) jj < Fj3!4 * # FPERSONREPRESENTED(Showyourfullname) [Q$4 + j#  ?1?[1 [Q?4 ,3  ?1 ? [#XZX\^Xb#XXZ&#XZXmd#^X\XXZ @6$4 - @Defendant"Adult Fjjjj3$4 .  F  DOCKETNUMBERS <2$4 / jjjj  < ZjK,4 0   Z#XZX\^Xd# cXXZ  1 #XZX c=f#^X\XXZ ND2 X 3j N ZjG5 6 # Z [Q$ 7 j#  @2@[2 [Q? 83  @2 @ [#XZX\^Xf#XXZ&#XZX:h#^X\XXZ @6$ 9 @DefendantJuvenile Ej6$ : E#XZX\^Xh# cXXZ  ԍ̎#XZX c[i#^X\XXZ  Jj7% ;j  JMagistrate @6$ < j @ kj\= =   k#XZX\^Xi# cXXZ 7- <=j 7#XZX cj#^X\XXZ @j- <= # @ [Q$ <> j#  @3@[3 [Q? <?3  @3 @ [#XZX\^Xpk#XXZ&#XZXl#^X\XXZ @6$ <@ @Appellant Djj3$ <A D  ԍ̎#XZX\^Xl# cXXZ  Jjj7% <Bjj J#XZX cm#^X\XXZ 4*$ <Cjj 4 Gjj6 <C   G Ij6$D Djj # I [Q$D E j#  @4@[4 [Q?D F3  @4 @ [#XZX\^Xcn#XXZ&#XZX p#^X\XXZ @6$D G @ProbationViolator Ej6$D H E#XZX\^Xfp# cXXZ D I #XZX c?q# cXXZ ZjG5 Kj  Z#XZX cq#^X\XXZDistrictCourt Gj6$D L j G XjE&D L  j & X [Q$ M j&  @5@[5 [Q? N3  @5 @ [#XZX\^X6r#XXZ&#XZXs#^X\XXZ @6$ O @ParoleViolator Ej6$ P E#XZX\^X"t# cXXZ 7j$ Pj  7#XZX ct#^X\XXZ 7- Q j 7 TjjE& Q    T <2$ L R jj < =3! L S =CHARGE/OFFENSE(describeifapplicable&  ԍcheckbox)  A7% L T A#XZX\^Xqu#XXZ&#XZXHw#^X\XXZ Ij6$ L U  IFelony [Q$ L V j  @6@[6 [Q? L W3  @6 @ [#XZX\^Xw#XXZ&#XZXx#^X\XXZ @6$ L X @HabeasPetitioner Ejj6$ L Y  E Ijj6$ L Z jj  ICourtofAppeals <2$ L [ jj < ZjK, L \   Z @6$T ]j @ @6$T ^ @#XZX\^Xy#XXZ&#XZXc{#^X\XXZ Ij6$T _  IMisdemeanor [Q$T ` j  @7@[7 [Q?T a3  @7 @ [#XZX\^X{#XXZ&#XZX|#^X\XXZ @6$T b @2255Petitioner Gjj6$T c G Ijj6$T djj I <2$T ejj < ZjK,T f   Z @6$ gj @ Ij6$ h  I [Q$ i j   @8 @[8 [Q? j3   @8  @ [#XZX\^X<}#XXZ&#XZX3#^X\XXZ @6$ k @MaterialWitness <2$ l < ZjK, m   Z @6$\ nj @Ѐ Ij6$\ o  I [Q$\ p j  "@9"@[9 [Q?\ q3  "@9 "@ [#XZX\^Xy#XXZ&#XZX#^X\XXZ @6$\ r @Other  ԍ(Specify)  Hj7%\ s H <2$\ tj < \jK,\ u   <<\ cjjjN/d v < j< <c#XZX\^X(# X XXZ  ANSWERSTOQUESTIONSREGARDINGABILITYTOPAY#XZX  X#^X\XXZ ajN/H w   jjj< <  a @6$Vx j  3@ XN/Vy < 3 X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ   ASSETS #XZX!lʆ#^X\XXZ QG5z3  Q#XZX\^X$#d!bXXZ ZjG5Z"   Z#XZX!bdɇ#XXZ   EMPLOY    MENT #XZXi#!lXXZ QG5 .. j  Q#XZX!l#m#XXZAreyounow  ԍ  employed?#XZX#mv#  A7%  A& @6$ @m#XXZYes @6$ @ @6$ @#XZX#m~#&m#XXZ @6$ @No @6$ @#XZX#mG#&m#XXZ @6$ @AmSelfEmployed#XZX#m# XN/   <X!lXXZ 7-Z 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-Z 7 7-Z 37#XZX%/r#m#XXZ SI/Z < 3 S#XZX#m0#!lXXZ 7- 7#XZX!l׎#/%XXZ 7- 7 7- 7#XZX%/P#m#XXZoNameandaddressof  employer: Gj6$N #G SI* j# <S#XZX#m#!lXXZ 7- 7#XZX!l-#/%XXZ 7- 7 7- 37#XZX%/#m#XXZő SI/ < 3 S#XZX#md#!lXXZ 7-: 7#XZX!l #/%XXZ 7-: 7 7-: 7#XZX%/#m#XXZ IFYES, howmuchdoyou @6$: @#XZX#mB#'XXZ IFNO ,givemonthandyearoflast : employment#XZX'#m#XXZ SI*6  S#XZX#m|#!lXXZ 7-. 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-. 7 7-. 7#XZX%/#m#XXZ ` earnpermonth?  ԍ . $  Hj7%.  H Cj2$.3j  C =3!.j = @6$. @#XZX#mH#'XXZHowmuchdidyouearnper  ԍ . month?$#XZX'#m#XXZ  Hj7%. H Cj2$.3j C UK,.  j <U#XZX#mw#!lXXZ 7- 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7- 7 >j- 3>#XZX%/#m#XXZ; XN/ < j3 X#XZX#m#!lXXZ 7-2 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-2 7 7-2 7#XZX%/#m#XXZ%IfmarriedisyourSpouse  ԍemployed?  A7%2 A#XZX#mĝ#&m#XXZ @6$2 @Yes @6$2 @#XZX#m#&m#XXZ @6$2 @No SI/2   S#XZX#ma#!lXXZ 7-* 7#XZX!l8#/%XXZ 7-* 7 7-* 7#XZX%/#m#XXZР IFYES ,howmuchdoesyour @6$* @#XZX#mo#'XXZIfaminorunderage21,whatisyour * Parentsor ND*j  N#XZX'##!lXXZ 7-  7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-  7 7-  7#XZX%/p#m#XXZԀSpouseearn   permonth?$#XZX#m@#'XXZ Gj6$j  G  Cj2$ 0j  C =3! j =Guardiansapproximatemonthly   income?$ Gj6$J G Cj2$ 3j C PF'  j <P#XZX'#!lXXZ 7- 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ @jj- @#XZX%/b#XXZ Gj6$jj 3G XN/ < j3 X#XZX#!lXXZ 7-V 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ @j-V @#XZX%/d#XXZ OTHER  V  INCOME QG5.LL~j 3Q#XZX#!lXXZHaveyoureceivedwithinthepast12monthsanyincomefromabusiness,professionorother  ԍformofselfemployment,orintheformofrentpayments,interest,  YO0V  3 Y 7-N 7#XZX!lŪ#/%XXZ 7-N 7 7-N '7#XZX%/N#!lXXZmtheformofrentpayments,interest,dividends,retirementor  ԍannuitypayments,orothersources?  #XZX!l #XZXXXZ  8.%N' 8&  ԍ  #XZXXXZۭ#!lXXZ  8.N 8Yes @6$N @#XZX!l}# @6$N @& @6$N @!lXXZNo XN/N   X 7- 7#XZX!lȯ#/%XXZ 7- 7 7- 7#XZX%/#!lXXZ @6$  @  #XZX!lY#^X\XXZRECEIVED#XZX\^X#!lXXZ @  @  @ @6$2  @ @6$" @ #XZX!lI#^X\XXZSOURCES #XZX\^X8#!lXXZ XN/"   X 7-  7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-  7 7-  7#XZX%/U#m#XXZt IFYES ,GIVETHE  ԍAMOUNT#XZX#m#!lXXZ  A7%  A Gj6$  G Cj2$ 3j C =3! j = Gj6$  G XN/   j X 7-  7#XZX!l#/%XXZ 7-  7 7-  7#XZX%/#m#XXZ۷ӀRECEIVED&  ԍIDENTIFY#XZX#mz#!lXXZ  A7%  A#XZX!l#m#XXZ  $#XZX#m#!lXXZ Gj6$ 0 G Cj2$ 3j C =3! j = Gj6$  G XN/   j X 7-  7#XZX!lӹ#/%XXZ 7-  7 7-  7#XZX%/#m#XXZѻӀ  ԍTHESOURCES#XZX#mp#!lXXZ  A7%  A Gj6$  G Cj2$ 3j C =3! j = Gj6$  G XN/   j <X 7-! 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ @jj-! @#XZX%/#!lXXZ> Gj6$!jj 3G XN/! < j3 X 7-0" 7#XZX!l#/%XXZ @j-0"  @#XZX%/#XXZ CASH @6$0" j @Haveyouanycashonhandormoneyinsavingsor  ԍcheckingaccounts?  A7%0" A#XZX{#&XXZ <2$0" <Ye  ԍs  :0"0" :#XZX#&  XXZ  >4"0"  >  No IFYES ,statetotal  ԍamount$  Hj7%0"  H  Cj2$0"0j CЀ I?,0"  j <I  (#  #XZX#/%XXZ 1jj (#  1#XZX%/\#XXZ Gj6$(# jj 3G LB/(#  < j3 <L  d# ! #XZX#/%XXZ 1jj d# !  1#XZX%/#XXZPROP d# ! ERTY $<"  QG5%l# UU&jj 3Q SI/d# ! < 3 S 7-#H! 7#XZX3#/%XXZ 7-#H! 7 7-#H! 37#XZX%/#XXZDoyouownanyrealestate,stocks,bonds,notes,automobiles,orothervaluableproperty #H! (excludingordinaryhouseholdfurnishingsand SI*$d" 3 S 7-J%" 7#XZXY#/%XXZ 7-J%" 7 7-J%" 7#XZX%/#XXZclothin  ԍg)?  A7%J%" A#XZX~#&XXZ @6$J%" @Yes @6$J%"  @#XZX9#&XXZ @6$J%"  )@No XN/J%"   ) X 7-&#  7#XZX#/%XXZ 7-&#  7 7-&#  7#XZX%/#XXZ4 ` @6$&#  @ #XZX#^X\XXZVALUE #XZX\^X|#XXZ @  @ @6$&# " @ @6$&#" @ #XZX#^X\XXZDESCRIPTION #XZX\^X#XXZ SI/&#"   S 7-&^$ 7#XZX#/%XXZ 7-&^$ 7 7-&^$ 7#XZX%/#  m#XXZ IFYES ,GIVETHEVALUEAND &^$ $#XZX#m#XXZ Gj6$&(% G Cj2$&^$3j C =3!&^$j = Gj6$&^$ G ND*&^$ j N 7-(~& 7#XZX#/%XXZ 7-(~& 7 7-(~& 7#XZX%/#m#XXZ `  DESCRIBEIT#XZX#m#XXZ Gj6$(~& G Cj2$(~&3j C =3!(~&j = Gj6$(~& G SI*(~& j S 7-)v' 7#XZX#/%XXZ 7-)v' 7 7-)v' 7#XZX%/#XXZ Gj6$)v' G Cj2$)v'3j C =3!)v'j = Gj6$)v' G XN/)v'   j X 7-*B(  7#XZX#/%XXZ 7-*B(  7 7-*B(  7#XZX%/#XXZ Gj6$*B(! G Cj2$*B("3j C =3!*B(#j = Gj6$*B($ G XN/*B(%  j LX 7-f+)% 7 Gj6$f+)& G >j-f+)&j 3> XN/f+)' L j3 < X @6$+Z)(  3@ XN/+Z)) < 3 X#XZXK#!lXXZ  OBLIGATIONS& +)* DEBTS #XZX!l#XXZ QG5.-*, |2 Q#XZX,# * XXZ#XZX*  ڿ#XXZ QjD2+)-LL  Q DEPENDENTS TjG5+). j  T#XZX#xAC,vXXZ TjG5+)/HH j  T#XZX,vxAC#^X\XXZMARITALSTATUS#XZX\^X#xAC,vXXZ Cj6$+)0 j C#XZX,vxAC#^X\XXZTotal +)1 No.of ,*3 Dependents#XZX\^Xk#xAC,vXXZ TjG5-+5"jj T QjD2+)6"jj Q TjG5+)7jHHj  T#XZX,vxAC#^X\XXZListpersonsyouactuallysupportandyour  ԍ +)8 relationshiptothem  MC0+)8   j <M#XZX\^X+#!lXXZ  ,\*8   ,\*8   ,\*8  ( ,\*8 (#XZX!l%#^X\XXZ   X   ԍ X   8.%,\*9 8 .$,\*9 . .$,\*9 . 7-,\*9 7 XN/,\*: <  X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ 7-,*: 7 7-,*: 7 7-,*: 7 >j-,*: >#XZX!l#^X\XXZ @6$,*;"j  @SINGLE @6$,*<  @ 7-,*< 7 7-,*< 7 >j-,*< > XN/,*=  j X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ 7-->+= 7 7-->+= 7 7-->+= 7 >j-->+= >#XZX!lu#^X\XXZ @ @6$->+>"j  @MARRIED X @6$->+?  @ <2$->+@ < =3!->+A =#XZX\^X#l.XXZ >j-->+A >#XZX.l#^X\XXZ XN/->+B  j X#XZX\^Xt#!lXXZ 7-<.+B 7 7-<.+B 7 7-<.+B 7 >j-<.+B >#XZX!l#^X\XXZ @ @6$<.+C"j  @WIDOWED Gj6$<.+D  G <2$<.+E"j < =3!<.+F =#XZX\^X3#l.XXZ >j-<.+F >#XZX.l#^X\XXZ XN/<.+G  j X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ 7-.,G 7 7-.,G 7 7-.,G 7 >j-.,G >#XZX!l#^X\XXZ @6$.,H"j @SEPARATEDOR @6$.,I @#XZX\^X#l.XXZ >j-.,I >#XZX.l#^X\XXZ XN/.,J  j X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ 7-/0-J 7 7-/0-J 7 7-/0-J 7 7-/0-J 7#XZX!l#^X\XXZ @6$/0-K @DIVORCED @6$/0-L @#XZX\^X#l.XXZ 7-/0-L 7#XZX.l#^X\XXZ XN//0-M   X#XZX\^X#!lXXZ 7-X 7 :j-X  :#XZX!l# XXZDEBTS&  X  MONTHLY 0 BILLS#XZX`#^X\XXZ  ` #XZX\^X#Z2XXZ(LISTALL  CREDITORS, D  INCLUDINGBANKS, P  LOANCOMPANIES,   CHARGEACCOUNTS, ` ETC.)#XZX2Z?#Eؚ1DXXZ TjG5l A: j  T#XZX1DEؚ1#B#3XXZ#XZX3B##Eؚ1DXXZ TjG5XCCB: j  T#XZX1DEؚ #^X\XXZAPARTMENT#XZX\^X#^X\XXZ Cj6$X j   CCreditors Cj6$X j   CTotalDebt Cj6$X" j  C Cj6$X j  CMonthly  ԍ X Paymt.  MC0X"   j M#XZX\^X#!lXXZ          (  ,(#XZX!l#^X\XXZORHOME: LB/  , L#XZX\^X#!lXXZ  L   L   L  /j L /#XZX!l*#^X\XXZԀ#XZX\^X#Eؚ1DXXZ <2$Lj <$ Dj3!L3 D Cj2$L3j C =3!Lj = @N! #XZX1DEؚ8#^X\XXZ @6$L @$ Gj6$L3 G Cj2$L3j C I?,L   j I#XZX\^X#!lXXZ  J    J    J   &j J  &#XZX!l#Eؚ1DXXZ 3)J!j 3$ Dj3!J"3 D Cj2$J#3j C =3!J$j = @6$J% @$ Gj6$J&3 G Cj2$J'3j C I?,J(  j I#XZX1DEؚ#!lXXZ  (   (   (  &j ( &#XZX!l#Eؚ1DXXZ 3))j 3$ Dj3!*3 D Cj2$+3j C =3!,j = @6$- @$ Gj6$.3 G Cj2$/3j C I?,0  j I#XZX1DEؚ#!lXXZ  >0   >0   >0  &j >0 &#XZX!l#^X\XXZ   X #XZX\^X #Eؚ1DXXZ 3)>1j 3$ Dj3!>23 D Cj2$>33j C =3!>4j = @6$>5 @$ Gj6$>63 G Cj2$>73j C I?,>8  j I#XZX1DEؚ #!lXXZ  <8   <8   <8  ( <8 )(#XZX!lU #Eؚ1DXXZ @6$<9) @ LB/<:   ZL#XZX1DEؚ #!lXXZ  :   :   :  ( : )(#XZX!l #Eؚ1DXXZ @6$;) @ XN/< Z  <X Cj6$<= 4 C XN/<> <  j4 )X#XZX1DEؚ#'XXZIcertifyunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueand  ԍcorrect.Executedon(date)#XZX'#Eؚ1DXXZ  Hj7%x ?) H XN/x @  j  X @6$A  3@ XN/B  3  X @6$6C  @#XZX1DEؚ#'XXZSIGNATUREOFDEFENDANT @6$6D @#XZX'# cXXZ#XZX c#'XXZ QG56E !Q XN/6F  !  X @6$A G  @#XZX'd#XXZ(ORPERSONREPRESENTED) @6$A H3 @#XZX# cXXZ >j-A H !>#XZX c(#XXZ?53A I  F j! ?$X,X` X$#XZX#