The rules newspapers follow when covering court cases involving minors

Newspapers around the U.S. publish many thousands of articles about criminal court cases every year, detailing information revealed in case documents and court proceedings. But when minors are involved, either as victims or defendants, what is and isn’t appropriate to publish?

The press received the most definitive answer to this question in 1979, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a West Virginia law that was used to prosecute two newspapers that identified a 14-year-old high school student who was accused of shooting and killing a 15-year-old classmate, according to the Student Press Law Center.

Courts have subsequently ruled that the names of minors can be published even when they are the victims of crimes if their identities are of significant public interest and thus crucial to the reporting itself. Case precedent also established that information discussed at hearings lawfully closed by government officials may also be published when that information is legally obtained through other means, which we in the newspaper business sometimes refer to as “side doors.”

The rest comes down to a newspaper’s interpretation of these rulings.

In each editorial decision we make at our own newspaper, we consider the question: How does this serve the public? Generally, we see no value in identifying a juvenile victim of a crime, but sometimes we believe it’s appropriate to identify a juvenile defendant who is charged with a violent crime.

This is where we landed regarding last week’s first-degree murder cases filed against three teenage defendants from Taos County who were accused of shooting and killing 52-year-old Shirley Reyes and gravely injuring her 19-year-old son, Alejandro Reyes. The defendants include a 16 year old, Javier Romero, and two 14 year olds, Rickey Fresquez and Elijah Hamilton, all of Taos County.

Despite being under 18, all three have been charged with first-degree murder, a capital crime, which is classified as such because offenses of this sort have historically presented the possibility that a defendant could be punished with the death penalty if found guilty. “Capital,” from the Latin root caput, refers to a convict literally losing their head, making this one of many outmoded legal terms still in use that is due for a change in phraseology.

Etymology aside, crimes of this nature are important for the public to know about, including who is being accused of committing them, irrespective of their age.

In fact, age seems to be the most critical component of these cases so far. If these young men are convicted, what was their motive? How did they access the firearms used in the shooting? Were their families aware they might turn to violence? Why, with all the modes of prevention our community prides itself on making available to its youth, did those systems not divert these young men onto a better path before it was too late?

The answers to these questions might lie in the court documents that remain sealed and the case proceedings still to come. We expect our court system, our district attorney’s office and the defense attorneys who take up these cases will practice transparency with these cases as they progress.

After all, our nation’s highest court has ruled that it is their public duty to do so.