with pretrial hearings, but with pretrial motions, which attach as exhibits, Title III and grand jury materials provided to defense counsel as part of pretrial discovery. In addition, of particular relevance to the present .case, some cases have held that some proceedings on motions to suppress can be filed under seal because if evidence has been seized illegally, the public has no right to it. See e.g., In re Application of Herald Co., 734 F.2d 93 (2d Cir., 1984) (remanding case for district court judge to explain reasons he used for justifying courtroom closure in defendant’s suppression hearing). Generally, the ju dicial system is not served by making illegally seized or inadmissible evidence available to the public. See United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 813 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). However, a court should recognize and
holding that the right of access to suppression hearings and accompanying motions does not extend to evidence actually ruled inadmissible holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings holding that vrcp 78b2 which gives trial courts discretion whether to hold hearings on written motions provides trial courts with discretion to deny evidentiary hearings on posttrial motions recognizing that the right does not extend to committing perjury holding that there is no right of public access to documents considered in civil discovery motions