rights it is a right not only held by the accused but also the public it is a default position of the united states constitution that any member of the public is free to attend any trial perceive the u s supreme court however as recognized that in certain rare situations circumstances that the right to a public trial may have to give way to other important rights or interest limiting public access to trials however is the exception and not the rule and trial courts must take special care to balance interests section one fifteen eleven which is at issue in this appeal presents one such statutory exception to the constitutional requirements of public trial it allows for the partial closure of a trial proceeding when the minor victim is testifying in the prosecution of a child sex of the statute allows the court to exclude from the proceedings all persons who in the opinion of the court do not have a direct interest in th case except the need like the constitutional requirement that the fall position of section one fifteen eleven is that the public may attend the p c however the statute gives the court discretion to exclude only those granted ravello a new trial holding that a defendant need not prove specific prejudice when the trial court excludes persons with the correct interest in the proceedings this court should similarly find the judge the finest violated section one there's no there's nothing indicating on the record that anyone was even trying to attend the proceedings here we have defense counsel's expressing that there were people who were trying to attend the proceedings and these are family members who are a subset of family members generally have in rebel or for example immediate family members are presumed to have a direct interest so this is a low you also have a specific  objection yes where the defense pushed the court on notice they have a specific objection talking about specific family members court now where because the defense made before to where that there were people interested it did the council didn't state the specific names of the people but he did make the court aware that there were people he even verbalize an objection on the record on the record question do we really know whether there was a room jackson or was this simply that situation where trial judge who's been doing these things for a long time knows that this is the type of thing that a defendant objects to moving the objection from the record we don't even know that you but based on the context of the entire proceedings that started to do that i mean and more specific defense counsel's disagreement trotwood understood the action and identified some yes or no and with the context of his first declaration that there were people that he wanted to be in the proper seedings take that in context with what your honor just said it shows that the that objection was directed that the that the court noted was this section one fifteen a lot of it proceeding closing similarly refracts just a curiosity about see this group of people that is that issue here doesn't reflect that kind of situation so they probably should have been aware and  the finest of used his discretion when he expressed personal sentencing policy by stating that all child molesters not be of good cannot be good people or do good things the court stated that the good deeds done by the child years are only done so that they can cover what they do in private and that this was the nature of child therefore the court determined through his personal opinion that any good act done by mr were not capable of doing any good acts that could be considered medical now in this case family testified about mr soong overseas character and multiple people family friends and acquaintances wrote crimes of sexual violence similarly that message would deter individuals from committing sexual violence however that alone does not make the statement acceptable to mr sloan over therefore asked that this court grant mr in the had constitution implications which you can't we just presume prejudice because it's structural similar will similarly this torch of adopt rebel as reason further since many of these cases came out the supreme court decided pressley which expands on the constitutional requirements so by not following section one fifteen eleven which is an and the united supreme court has recognized this as one of form of structural error so if the constitutional implications of this are not met if a truck court didn't do enough based on the constitutional that would also be if we look at the timeline the these were both both of the discussions by the trial court the prior to they were actually clearing the court winning actually there's a courtroom when they travel or clears a court room t this would be the perfect and i would say they had a duty to if they were family members even still there again that they said there were family members there prior to opening remarks this was right when tim allen is going to testify after opening remarks if their specific compel a defense lawyer to do more after the record already establishes he's a very good while if the trial judge is already indicated on the record i've noted defense counsel  subjection wouldn't defense council then think i've done what i needed to do well if you want to establish a proper record you would at least need to specify i mean not not every family member is required to stay under prejudice which i would submit we should but yes that would be that would be the violation of one fifteen eleven immediate family members of defendant it's been held they have a direct interest in the case there were the procedures of one fifteen eleven were don't i mean it could very well be i can't remember what the context was it could be a the ending of a difference of a sense before that i don't know but bat on its own is not enough at that point there should have been a specific objection and again defendants brothers here or whatever they're simply not enough here to establish an immediate family members and i would submit that the trial counsel had a duty to at least inform the trial court as to what status the family members were there and this is in him staying silent when he says who else that's affirmative acquiescence as far as i'm concerned that's more than mere forfeiture that's acceptance of the travel did you have a question and i did i just wanted to make sure is there any doubt that the the record is clear that defense counsel inform the trial judge that there were family members present in the courtroom  yes i think he said are there are family members here are they going to bars and it's clear that the trial court ordered everyone in the court room except for media and the victim grandmother two acts of courtroom that's a that's a particularly if you look at the record that they actually only say everyone's out except for media in other words if the state held up its end of the bargain saying hey mel's relatives grandmother i can't i think mother and sister are some day they need to say to the state held up that into the bargain as soon as that was done the trial court says ok well we'll previously the defense attorney had indicated family members in the trial court said out right yes again that that's a gut reaction by the trial court and th stay when they were actually clearing the court this is especially true is directly after that they even specifically require the trial court specifically wires as to the remaining people in the room what their relationship was to the case defendant defense counsel had every opportunity to raise the issue a this this is defend his mother she should be allowed to stay there's nothing in the record that shows there's an immediate family member so that's why the waiver in this case especially beginning of the proceeding before opening remarks that's when the defense counsel question the trial court and then directly after opening remarks that's when they said they were planning on doing it again and they know if it's objections and then later actually prior to emily's testimony is when he actually does go through clearing the court room always a always allowing specifically excluding the media and then specifically including who the state mentions are family members of  male at that point again i would i would just submit the defense counsel had a duty of that point to at least specify the or the record which family members were there and to make a record for th court as to either he's abusing his discretion and not allowing them or he is excluding cousins aunts and uncles the williams case cited in my brief the third district case states the well settled principle the trial judges are presumed to follow the law we presume that the judge allowed all those identified with a direct interest in the case to be present during s h s testimony there i think it was done in chambers and only people there were defending amendment to the u s constitution was meant for weightier matters section one fifteen dash eleven of the code does not conflict with that amendment because section one fifteen eleven from its only limited closure of trial court proceedings that section does not violate or even implicate any state or federal constitutional provisions in other words one fifteen dasha levon doesn't have anything to do with the sixth amendment right to a public trial because one it's a limited closure it's only during a  addictions testimony to the media is specifically excluded and three people with direct interest as they are are also specifically excluded the point of the constitutional provision not even being submit that the degree of infraction of section one fifteen eleven would go towards whether prejudiced is established or not i don't think it's const i don't think it's a per se prejudice but that this resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial in here simply because it's difficult to see what revel of the sides that there must be to presume prejudice and i would argue that that's that's bad logic  simply because prejudice is difficult to establish does not mean that we should presume prejudice in all cases i think it should mean the exact opposite one example of prejudice maybe being a violation of one fifteen eleven showing prejudice would be if even the media is excluded or maybe even defending their defense counsel to exclude or something like that that could be a very good argument for predators here a question about defendant's family members simply is not enough to establish a second wrong plain there and you indicated earlier you're unaware of any precedent that would suggest that close improper closure of court room proceedings constitutes structural as far as the u s supreme court i can't remember and i didn't have time these are pretty hefty briefs i didn't have time to flip through counsel briefs so he may very well be right but i don't remember any case specific so holding there may be one u s supreme court case that kind of touches upon it that this is only a limited and closure and specially in this case where the trial court seemed to properly apply one fifteen eleven they only limited to m l s testimony they specifically excluded the media and they asked who else after the state said hey these people say i would think that the defense counsel would make a similar so your so basically you're using it was the ask every single person in the courtroom what their relationship to the case was they did do that after the remaining people were cleared out a little many people left they did ask what about these people but the record as  weighed i think the other position argued with the sentencing argument personal sentencing policy clearly these were just personal observations by the trial court in fact there's not even a policy to mention they don't specifically say hey with regards to it being structural air hope the right to a public right of the right to a public trial rebel oh says the holding is bolstered by the practice of presuming prejudice when the constitutional guarantee of a public trial is violated so that kind of assumes that its structural air similarly pressley where the united supreme court state supreme court again didn't analyze the prejudice which is typically what the court does in cases where there are structural it didn't i don't believe it specifically stated the word structure but other supreme court cases which i have to be on the side of in my brief and i believe justice harris you asked whether the that the court decided to sue a slant a matter and i think it does because this is not an issue that he's a defense counsel is trying to convince the court this is an issue that that the judge already made his decision before going in that this was going to be closed a closed court this is not defense counsel arguing with the state and trying to convince the court of something this isn't was r t and defense counsel was trying to make a clarification and make an objection to that if it would be then this is right before standing objection to one hand but doesn't choose to say anything about one fifth of that and that's because when fifteen times as a pretrial decision and defense counsel and the defense counsel tried to do its best to make a court aware that there are people of interest us and the fact that you will go over your lunch hour thank you very much