In this case, the Tribunal stated that the tribunal erred in failing to recognize the strong presumption in favour of public access; based its decision to seal the dataset on a general policy authorized by local rules; did not require the government to provide specific reasons to seal the plea; and did not weigh Bacon`s security argument against any argument put forward by the government. As regards the third element, Bacon has shown that the error affected his essential rights, since there was a reasonable probability that if the district court had taken into account the strong presumption of public access to the court records, the addition to the plea would not have been placed under seal. United States v. Andrews, 447 F.3d 806 (Cir. 10, 2006). Finally, Bacon showed that the error seriously undermined the integrity of the judicial process, as public access to court records is fundamental to a democratic state. United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir.

1980). The unnecessary sealing of files creates public distrust of the judiciary. Sealing, judicial transparency and independence of the judiciary, 53 Vill. L. Rev. 939 (2008). “The minutes show that the District Court did not take into account this presumption of access to court records. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that, without the District Court`s error, the amendment to Mr. Bacon`s plea would not have been filed under seal. In addition, the District Court did not conduct a case-specific balancing exercise to determine whether the government`s interest “far outweighs” the public interest in access.

If the District Court had considered the government`s interest in the specific case (including the undisputed evidence that Mr. Bacon had been compromised by the sealed plea supplement) rather than relying solely on the local rule, there is a reasonable likelihood that Lord. Bacon`s plea amendment would not have been submitted under seal. Bacon pleaded guilty to several counts, including bank robbery. This appeal concerned the District Court`s decision to file Bacon`s amendment to its agreement. The district court did not move: “We are trying to standardize the districts so that everyone has a sealed supplement.” But the Tenth Circuit analyzed the problem according to a standard of simple error (the call advanced a new theory) and sided with Mr. Bacon. Bacon had refused to cooperate with the government, and he told the trial court that his life would be in danger if other prisoners read that his supplement was under lock and key because his fellow inmates had wrongly concluded that the sealed records meant he had cooperated. The administration argued that the supplement should be sealed in accordance with a local Utah District rule that required all amendments to plea agreements to be submitted under seal for uniformity. The district court, which relied on local rule, sided with the government. On appeal, Bacon argued that the District Court erred in disregarding the usual right of access to court records and failing to make case-specific submissions to seal the case. Since Bacon had objected to sealing the protocol solely on the grounds that the seal endangered his life, the Tenth Circuit noted that his right of access at common law was first invoked on appeal.

United States v. A.B., 529 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2008). Consequently, the Court considered a manifest error. To prevail, Bacon had to prove that (1) an obvious error (2) had been made (3) that it affected his essential rights and (4) that it had seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the trial. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (Cir. 10, 2005). With respect to the first and second elements, there was a manifest error, since the Court had previously held that “it was clearly established that court documents fall within a common law right of access”, US v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10 Cir.

1997). There is a strong presumption in favour of public access, which can only be overcome if “conflicting interests far outweigh public interests in access”. Colony Ins. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222 (10 Cir. 2012). It is incumbent upon the party opposing disclosure to “articulate a sufficiently important interest that warrants” to override the presumption of public access. United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297 (Cir. 10, 2013). In deciding whether to seal certain documents, courts must “take into account the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and weigh the relative interests of the parties.” United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705 (10 Cir.

1985). The decision to seal or unseal a file on a general guideline is not based on constitutional or common law standards. United States v. DeJournett, 817 F.3d 479 (Cir. 6, 2016). . . . . . .