Individualized Review Required: Second Circuit Affirms First-Amendment Right of Public Access to Sentencing Memoranda and Exhibits

Introduction

Lee v. Greenwood, No. 23-7432-cr (2d Cir. July 28, 2025), is the latest in a line of Second Circuit decisions strengthening the public’s right to observe criminal proceedings and to access court filings. Matthew Russell Lee, a journalist for Inner City Press, appealed the Southern District of New York’s order sealing large portions of Karl Sebastian Greenwood’s sentencing submission— filings relating to Greenwood’s $4.5 billion “OneCoin” cryptocurrency fraud.

The Circuit confronted two key issues:

• Does the First Amendment right of access extend to sentencing memoranda and their exhibits?
• If so, what level of justification must a district court provide when it elects to redact or seal those materials?

Holding that the First Amendment does attach, the court vacated the blanket sealing of Greenwood’s 34 exhibits while upholding limited redactions in the memorandum itself.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit:

1. Recognized a qualified First Amendment right of public access to sentencing memoranda and related exhibits.
2. Clarified that third-party appeals from sealing orders in criminal dockets are “civil in nature,” governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)’s 30-day deadline—not Rule 4(b)’s 14-day criminal deadline.
3. Affirmed the district court’s targeted redactions protecting medical data, third-party identities, and sensitive law-enforcement information within the memorandum.
4. Vacated the wholesale sealing of 34 exhibits, finding the lower court failed to make the “specific, on-the-record findings” required to overcome the First Amendment presumption.
5. Remanded for an individualized, exhibit-by-exhibit assessment and consideration of less restrictive alternatives such as partial redaction.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

• Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)
  – Provides the three-step framework for common-law and First-Amendment access; emphasized that filings influencing judicial decisions are “judicial documents.”
• In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987)
  – Articulated the requirement for “specific, on-the-record findings” and “narrow tailoring” when sealing judicial records; heavily relied upon for the remedy (individualized review vs. wholesale sealing).
• United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2005)
  – Found a First-Amendment right of access to sentencing proceedings; Lee extends Alcantara from live hearings to written sentencing materials.
• Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)
  – Reinforced the strong presumption of access and required district courts to undertake line-item review when possible; cited for appellate standard of review and burden on lower courts.
• United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995)
  – Identified privacy interests that qualify as “higher values.” Encapsulated the private-vs-public balancing test applied to Greenwood’s medical info and family letters.
• United States v. Bradley, 882 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2018) & United States v. Aldawsari, 683 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2012)
  – Classified collateral third-party motions in criminal cases as civil in nature for appellate-timing purposes.

B. Legal Reasoning

The panel applied a two-track analysis:

1. Jurisdiction & Timeliness
   – Because Lee was a third-party appealing an ancillary sealing order, his case resembled a civil proceeding; thus Rule 4(a)’s 30-day limit governed and his notice was timely.
2. Right of Access
   a) Judicial Document: Sentencing submissions influence the judge’s Article III sentencing function; hence they are “judicial documents.”
   b) First Amendment Attachment: Sentencing hearings are public; written materials are the “necessary corollary.” Therefore, the stronger First-Amendment presumption applies.
   c) Overcoming the Presumption: To seal, a court must:
   • Identify a higher value (e.g., medical privacy, third-party safety).
   • Make “specific, on-the-record findings.”
   • Adopt the least-restrictive means (narrow tailoring).
   d) Application:
   • The district court’s one-sentence order sufficed for redactions within the memorandum because the court narrowly protected private health and family data.
   • The same explanation was inadequate for sealing 34 exhibits wholesale—many contained benign certificates or already-quoted letters, suggesting overbreadth.

C. Impact

This decision cements several practical rules for future litigation within the Second Circuit:

• Universal Coverage of Sentencing Materials: Any filing meant to influence sentencing—including exhibits—now enjoys the qualified First-Amendment presumption.
• Individualized Review Mandate: District courts must parse exhibits one-by-one (or at least category-by-category) before sealing; blanket orders risk reversal.
• Streamlined Justification Standard: Although individualized review is required, district judges need not produce “line-by-line” explanations; concise, content-specific reasoning will suffice.
• Appellate Timing Clarified: Journalists and other non-parties have 30 days to appeal sealing decisions in criminal dockets.
• Privacy vs. Transparency Balance: The opinion reiterates that medical privacy, third-party safety, and law-enforcement sensitivity remain legitimate grounds for sealing—courts simply must articulate them with particularity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified First-Amendment Right: A presumption favoring openness that can be rebutted only if the court shows (1) a compelling counter-interest and (2) narrow tailoring—think of it as “open by default, closed only with good reason.”
• Judicial Document: Any filing that could influence the judge’s decision. If it helps the court decide something substantive, it’s a judicial document.
• Narrow Tailoring: Selecting the least-restrictive method—often partial redaction—instead of sealing an entire document.
• Ancillary Proceeding: A side dispute attached to a main criminal case—like a third-party’s motion to unseal—treated procedurally like a civil matter.

Conclusion

Lee v. Greenwood extends the transparency ethos of the Second Circuit into a crucial stage of the criminal process: sentencing. By declaring a First-Amendment right of access to both sentencing memoranda and their exhibits, the court obliges trial judges to justify secrecy with specificity and restraint. For practitioners, the message is clear: when seeking to shield materials, prepare to defend each redaction; for journalists and the public, the ruling offers a reinforced avenue to scrutinize how sentences are crafted. In an era of heightened interest in cryptocurrency fraud and white-collar accountability, this decision ensures that the judicial system remains visible, comprehensible, and, ultimately, answerable to the citizenry it serves.