On Point: 33. Public Trial

The Supreme Court’s most recent orders list denied cert in a whole lot of cases; one of those denials drew a written dissent from Justice Sotomayor. She would have granted certiorari and summarily reversed an Eighth Circuit decision denying habeas relief to the defendant.

Weaver v. Massachusetts, USSC No. 16-240, 2017 WL 2674153 (June 22, 2017); affirming Commonwealth v. Weaver, 54 N.E.3d 495 (Mass. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Members of the public–specifically, Kentel Weaver’s family–were excluded from the overcrowded courtroom during jury selection for his trial. Violations of the Sixth Amendment right to public trial have been called structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis. But Weaver’s lawyer didn’t object, so this is an ineffective assistance claim, which of course requires him to show prejudice. But how do you show that you were prejudiced by a structural error–after all, the term refers to an error whose “effect … cannot be ascertained”? United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 149 n.4 (2006).

State v. Nancy J. Pinno & State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2014 WI 74, 7/18/14, on certification from the court of appeals, and affirming the circuit court’s orders denying postconviction relief; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Deciding an issue left open by State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶¶34-38, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, the supreme court rejects the argument that the right to a public trial must be affirmatively and knowingly waived by the defendant. Instead, the court holds, “[a] defendant who fails to object to a judicial decision to close the courtroom forfeits the right to a public trial, so long as the defendant is aware that the judge excluded the public from the courtroom.” (¶7).

court of appeals certification request; certification granted 2/25/13; case activity (Seaton); case activity (Pinno)

Issue Presented (from Certification): 

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

As suggested, in each of these consolidated cases the trial judge barred the public from the courtroom (during jury selection in each instance),

US Supreme  Court decision

Public Trial – Closing Courtroom for Voir Dire
Sixth Amendment right to a public trial in criminal cases extends to jury selection phase. Failure to consider alternatives to closure violated this right (“trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties”). Nor did the lower court identify any “overriding” interest in favor of closure:

There are no doubt circumstances where a judge could conclude that threats of improper communications with jurors or safety concerns are concrete enough to warrant closing voir dire.

State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268
For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser

Issue/Holding:

¶43      If a defendant’s right to a public trial is determined to have been violated, the defendant need not show prejudice; the doctrine of harmless error does not apply to structural errors. [15]

 [15]  See Neder v.

State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268
For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser

Issue/Holding1: Closure of the courtroom to numerous members of defendant’s family during witness testimony implicated the right to public trial:

¶51      Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that pursuant to the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, “an accused is at the very least entitled to have his friends,

State v. David L. Vanness, 2007 WI App 195
For Vanness: Chad Lanning

Issue/Holding: Right to public trial under the 6th amendment was violated when the courthouse was locked (though the courtroom doors themselves remained open) during the defense case and State’s rebuttal:

¶8 The right to a public trial is a basic tenet of our judicial system, Walton v. Briley, 361 F.3d 431,