The recent release of some court documents in the Gee family murder case is welcome news for all who cherish American principles of openness in government, including our judicial system.

Ensuring a fair, impartial trial for those charged in the deaths of Rick and Ruth Gee and three of their children is an important task — and, at times, can be a challenging one.

But there are steps that can be taken short of secrecy and wholesale sealing of records to ensure the defendants’ rights are protected.

Maintaining openness and public access throughout the legal proceedings is not a matter of satisfying curiosity; it’s a matter of fostering faith in our justice system.

A long line of Supreme Court cases has determined there must be a balancing act between the First Amendment rights of a free press and the Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial. The right to a public trial does not just belong to the defendant. Justices have recognized that there is an inherent right — traced back through common law and rights not specifically listed in the Constitution — for the public to have access to criminal proceedings.

In these cases, the press is, in effect, standing in for members of the public who cannot attend every court hearing and read every document, even when they are public.

As was so ably expressed by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1966 case of Shepherd v. Maxwell, “The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors and the judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”

The 1980 case of Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia noted that openness is important in the legal system to assure the public that proceedings are carried out fairly and decisions aren’t based on bias or partiality.

Limiting access to information can harm public confidence in how the courts are handling a case.

Furthermore, without accurate information from official sources, people are more likely to turn to rumors, many of which are likely to be false or exaggerated.

The latter situation was noted in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, a 1976 case involving a murder in a community of 850. The court noted that, without news accounts of court proceedings, “rumors would travel swiftly by word of mouth.”

Keeping the court process open, as noted in the Richmond Newspapers case, provides “an outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion” following a shocking crime.

Openness through each stage of the Gee family murder case is important for the community to evaluate the jobs being done by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judiciary.