Error and/or relief
The court’s closure of the courtroom to the entire public during the testimony of at least two accomplice witnesses (who claimed fear of retaliation by the defendant’s fellow gang members for their testimony) violated the defendant’s constitutional right under the federal and state constitutions to a public trial.
First Holding:
Four requirements are necessary to justify exclusion of the entire public from a courtroom:
(1) the existence of an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced absent the closure;
(2) the closure is narrowly tailored, i.e., no broader than necessary to protect that interest;
(3) no reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding are available; and
(4) the trial court must make findings adequate to support the closure.
Authority:
Waller v. Georgia, (1984) 467 U.S. 39, 48
Second Holding:
A partial closure of the courtroom requires only a substantial reason for the exclusion of certain spectators, and that the exclusion be narrowly tailored.
Authority:
People v. Baldwin (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1421, fn. 1
Third Holding:
The United States Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a public trial, including the right to have friends and relatives present during the proceedings.
The right to a public trial serves two important interests. It protects those who are accused of a crime by helping to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly convicted and that the guilty are given a fair trial. Second, there is a strong societal interest in public trials; they provide an opportunity for spectators to observe the judicial system, improve the quality of testimony, encourage witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, and prompt judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors to perform their duties conscientiously.
Authority:
U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15;
In re Oliver (1948) 333 U.S. 257, 271-272, 272, fn. 29 [noting special concern for assuring attendance of a defendant’s family members and friends]
People v. Scott (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 524, 530
Fourth Holding:
In general, there are two types of exclusions: a total closure where all spectators are directed to leave the courtroom, and a partial closure where some, but not all, spectators are asked to leave.
Authority:
People v. Esquibel (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 539, 552
Fifth Holding:
While California statutes permit both exclusion and closure orders, rulings applying those statutes are still subject to the fundamental constitutional right to a public trial under the federal and California constitutions. We thus analyze the court’s Closure Order (excluding the entire public during the testimony of certain witnesses) using the factors the Supreme Court identified as relevant to balancing the important public interest in open courtrooms against any higher values or overriding interest.
Authority:
PEN 686.2
PEN 868,7
Waller v. Georgia, (1984) 467 U.S. 39, 45
Sixth Holding:
Protecting trial witnesses from threats, harassment, or physical harm is an overriding interest and deserving of protection. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual determination that one of the witnesses felt intimidated by the presence of individuals in the courtroom on the second day of his testimony.
(Gary note: The court went on to compare the conclusions of the trial court with the remaining requirements of Waller, and determined that the initial partial exclusion order by the trial court–excluding only certain named individuals–was likely reasonable under Waller. The additional information the trial court received about the defendant’s purported involvement in securing the presence of those spectators did not add anything to the analysis of the threat as to warrant closure to the entire public. The appellate court’s analysis under Waller is fact specific and not particularly informative in the context of these summaries of unpublished opinions.)
Authority:
NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1223
Seventh Holding:
It has been a longstanding aspect of criminal law that exclusion of witnesses does not violate a defendant’s right to a public trial, even if the witnesses are the defendant’s close relations.
Authority:
EVID 777 [the trial court may exclude from the courtroom any witness not at the time under examination so that such witness cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses]
People v. Sprague (1879) 53 Cal. 491, 493 [The wife and daughters of defendant were witnesses, and were properly included within the order which excluded from the Court-room all witnesses but the one under examination]
United States v. Ricker (8th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 987, 994 [rejecting the defendant’s Sixth Amendment argument after the defendant’s father was excluded from the courtroom as a potential witness but was not called; explaining that the Supreme Court has said that an accused is at the very least entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged., but that entitlement is not absolute, and does not necessarily prohibit the sequestration of the defendant’s friends or relatives who may be called as witnesses.]