# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 16 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Arm on Tho m

ps on , als o k no wn as Bin Lade n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 12

Fil ed : Ap ril 23 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Arm on Tho m

ps on ap pe al s fro m th e dis tr ic t co ur t' s se nte nc e im

pose d fo llo w ing 1

Tho m ps on 's gu il ty pl ea to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. On

ap pe al

, Tho m

ps on cl ai m s th e di st ric t cou rt vi ol at ed hi s Six th Am en dm en t rig ht to a

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.pu bl ic tri al at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng whe n th e co ur t cl os ed th e co ur tro om du rin g th e

te st im on y of o ne wit ne ss . Becau se we fin d n o c on st it ut io na l i nf irmity , we affi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

Tho m ps on pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

fo ll owi ng hi s arre st on Decem be r 2, 20 10

. On th at da te

, of fic ers were con du ct in g a

ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n in St

. Jo se ph , Mis so ur i, an d wer e at te m pt in g t o l oc at e a k ey

s u s p e ct

. Tho m

ps on acco m

pa ni ed th e su sp ect on th at da te an d of fic ers di sc o v e r e d

bo th m en in th e ba se m en t of a res id en ce, al on g wit h se ve ral fir earm s, so m e of whi ch

, fo ll owi ng ba ll is ti c an d DNA te st in g, were su sp ect ed to ha ve b e e n us ed in th e

ho m ic id e un de r in ve st ig at io n. Off i c ers arre st ed bo th m en on ou ts ta nd in g fel on y

warra nt s an d t oo k t he m

in for qu es ti on in g i n re la ti on to th e h om ic id e.

Pen di ng se nt en ci ng , Tho m ps on was he ld at th e St

. Cl ai re Co un ty Ja il in

Osc eo la

, Mi ss ou ri. At leas t for part of Tho m ps on 's ti m e in jail

, he was ho us ed wit h

Ju st in Cam

pb el l. At Tho m

ps on 's se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Dete ct iv e Sco tt Co at es te st ifi ed

th at he in te rv ie wed Cam

pb el l aft er le arn in g th at Cam pb el l m ig ht ha ve in fo rm at io n

reg ard in g th e ho m ic id e. D e t e c t iv e Co at es te st ifi ed th at du rin g th e in te rv ie w, Camp b el l to ld Dete ct iv e Co at es th at whi le Cam pb el l was ho us ed wit h Tho m ps on , Th o m ps on to ld hi m th at he

, Tho m ps on , was in vo lv ed in a dr iv e-b y sh oo ti ng i n S t

. Jo se ph

, al on g wit h an ot he r fri en d who ha d be en ch arg ed wit h th e m ur de r. Cam

pb el l

al so rel ay ed in fo rm at io n to Dete ct iv e Co at es ab ou t th e s h o o t i n g as to ld to hi m by

Tho m ps on th at co rro bo rat ed ex is ti ng ev id en ce in th e cas e. Dete ct iv e Co at es fu rth er

te st ifi ed th at Cam

pb el l ex pr es se d co nc ern fo r hi s own sa fet y sh ou ld Tho m ps on fin d

ou t t ha t Ca m

pb el l h ad gi ve n t he in fo rm at io n.

Fo ll o w in g Dete ct iv e Co at es ' te st im on y , jus t pr io r to cal li ng Cam pb el l to th e

wit ne ss st an d, th e go ve rn m en t r eq ue st ed th at th e co ur tro om be cl eare d gi ve n

Cam pb el l's ex pr es se d co nc ern fo r hi s sa fet y

. Defen se co un se l po in te d ou t to th e co ur t

-2

-th at th e pe op le in th e ga ll ery were al l fam il y of Tho m ps on ; th a t no on e in th e

co ur tro om was rel at ed to an y on e el se

. The co ur t as ke d whe th er "s om eb od y fro m th e

pr es s" was th ere, an d whe n th e co ur t le arn ed th at th ere was no t, it gr an te d th e req ue st

to cl ear th e co ur tro om , sp eci f i c a l l y e xc lu di ng a m em

be r of th e co ur t st aff who

rem ai ne d in th e ga ll ery. At th at po in t, th e pa rti es ap pr oa ch ed th e be nc h an d de fen se

co un se l m ad e a rec or d o n t he m at te r, ob jecti ng to an y cl os ur e be cau se of th e pu bl ic

na tu re of th e he ari ng , no ti ng th at ev eryon e c l e a r e d were fam il y m em be rs of

Tho m ps on an d arg ui ng th at th ere was no ev id en ce "o f [th e pe op le be in g cl eare d]

be in g i n a po si ti on to th reat en or ha rm Mr. Cam pb el l." The co ur t resp on de d, "[t]he

al le ga ti on s are th at he was a ga ng m em be r an d was in vo lv ed in dr iv e-b y sh oo ti ng s so

I'm go in g to ov erru le y ou r ob jecti on ." The co ur tro om wa s c l e a r e d an d Cam pb el l

te st ifi ed

.

The po rti on of Cam

pb el l's te st im o n y r e l e va nt he re co rro bo rat ed th at of

Dete ct iv e Co at es

. Cam pb el l r e i t e r a t ed th at Tho m ps on to ld Cam

pb el l th at he

, Tho m ps on , ha d be en in vo lv ed i n a dr iv e-b y sh oo ti ng an d co nv ey ed de ta il s to

Cam pb el l ab ou t su rro un di ng ev en ts th at were su pp or te d by ev id en ce in th e ho m ic id e

cas e. The di st ri c t c o ur t fo un d Cam pb el l cred ib le an d co ns id ered Cam pb el l's

te st im on y in it s se nt en ci ng cal cu la ti on , s p e c i f i cal ly it s de te rm in at io ns reg ard in g

su gg es te d enh an cem en ts ari si ng fro m Tho m ps on 's u se or p os se ss io n o f an y fir earm

or am m un it io n in co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se th at res ul te d in de at h. The

co ur t se nt en ced Tho m

ps on to 12 0 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. Tho m

ps on ap pe al s,

cl ai m in g th at whe n th e co ur t cl eare d th e co ur tro om pr io r to Cam pb el l's te st im on y , it

vi ol at ed Tho m

ps on 's Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a pu bl ic tri al , a st ru ct ur al erro r th at

is no t am en ab le to ha rm le ss erro r rev ie w.

-3

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A th res ho ld qu es ti on is whe th er th e rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al in cri m in al cas es

un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ex te nd s to se nt en ci ng he ari ng s. The Si xt h Am en dm en t

pr ov id es :

In al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d sh al l en joy th e rig ht to a sp eed y

an d pu bl ic tri al

, by an im

pa rti al jury of th e St at e an d di st ric t whe rei n th e cri m e sh al l ha ve be en co m m it te d, whi ch di st ric t sh al l ha ve be en

pr ev io us ly as cert ai ne d by la w, an d t o be in fo rm ed of th e na tu re an d

cau se of th e accu sa ti on ; to be co nf ro nt ed wit h th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m ;

to ha ve co m

pu ls or y pr oc es s fo r ob ta in in g wit ne ss es in hi s fav or , an d to
ha ve th e Ass is ta nc e o f Co un se l fo r hi s d efen ce.

U.S. Con st . am en d. VI.

The pu bl ic tri al rig ht of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ha s l o ng be en vi ewed as "'a

sa feg ua rd ag ai ns t an y

att em pt to em pl oy ou r co ur ts as i ns tru m en ts of p ers ecu ti on .'"

Uni te d S ta te s v. Thu nd er, 43 8 F.3 d 86 6, 86 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng In re Oli ve r,

33 3 U.S. 25 7, 27 0 (1 94 8) ). "'Pu bl ic sc ru ti ny of a cri m in al tri al en ha nc es th e qu al it y

an d sa feg ua rd s th e in te gr it y of th e fact fin di ng pr oc es s, wit h be ne fit s to bo th th e

de fen da nt an d to so ci e t y a s a who le .'" Thu nd er, 43 8 F.3 d at 86 7 (q uo ti ng Glo be

Newsp ap er Co . v. Su pe r. Ct . for Norf ol k C nt y ., 45 7 U.S. 5 96 , 60 6 (1 98 2) ).

The req ui rem en t of a pu bl ic tri a l is fo r th e be ne fit of th e accu se d; th at
th e pu bl ic m ay se e he is fai rly d eal t wit h an d no t u n ju st ly co nd em

ne d,

an d th at th e pr es en ce of in te res te d sp ect at or s m ay ke ep hi s tri ers ke en ly

al iv e to a se ns e of th ei r res po ns i bi li ty an d to th e im po rta nc e of th ei r fu nc ti on s.

W al le r v. Geo rg ia

, 46 7 U

. S

. 3 9

, 46 (1 98 4) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d) ; acco rd Est es v.

Tex as , 38 1 U.S. 53 2, 58 8 (1 965) (H ar la n, J.

, conc ur rin g) ("Es se nt ia ll y , th e pu bl ic -tr ia l

-4

-gu aran te e em bo di es a vi ew of hu m an na tu re, tru e a s a g e n e ral ru le

, th at jud ge s,

la wy ers , wit ne ss es , an d juro rs wil l pe rfo rm th ei r res pe c t i v e fu nc ti on s m or e

res po ns ib ly in an op en co ur t t ha n i n s ecre t p ro ceed in gs .").

W he th er th e rig ht to a p u b l i c tri al un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t at ta ch es at

se nt en ci ng is an is su e th at ha s no t be en sp eci fic al ly ad dr es se d b y t h i s c o u rt or th e

Su pr em e Co ur t. Howev er, it is cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at th e pu bl ic tri al rig ht ex te nd s

be y on d act ua l pr oo f at tri al

, W al le r, 46 7 S. Ct

. at 45

, an d can be in vo ke d by th e pr es s

an d th e pu bl ic u nd er th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, or th e accu se d un de r th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t, Pre sl ey

v. Geo rg ia , 13 0 S . Ct. 7 21 , 72 3 (2 01 0) (pe r cu ria m ).

To det erm in e whe th er the Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al at ta ch es at

se n t e n c i ng , juri sp ru de nc e di sc us si ng th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al

in fo rm s t he an al y si s.

Of co ur se , ou r Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss cas es do no t di rect ly

co nt ro l he re, be cau se th is cas e co n c e r n s a cri m in al de fen da nt 's Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al

, an d "[t ]he e x t e n t to whi ch th e Fi rs t

an d Si xt h Am en dm en t pu bl ic tri al r ig ht s are co ex te ns iv e is an op en

qu es ti on ." Pres le y v. Geo rg ia

, 13 0 S. Ct

. 72 1, 72 4 (2 01 0) (p er cu ria m ).

As th e Su p r e me Co ur t ob se rv ed in W al le r v. Geo rg ia

, 46 7 U.S. 39 (1 98 4)

, ho wev er, pr eced en ts co nc ern in g th e reac h of th e pu bl ic 's Fi rs t
A m en dm en t rig ht of acce ss m ay in fo rm th e sc op e of th e de fen da nt ' s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a p u b l i c tri al

, be cau se "t he re can be li tt le

do ub t th at th e exp li ci t Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht of th e accu se d is no le ss

pr ot ect iv e of a pu bl ic tri al th an th e imp li ci t Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of th e

pr es s an d p ub li c." Id . at 4 6 (e m ph as is ad de d)

.

Uni te d St at es v. Ri ve ra, 68 2 F.3 d 12 23

, 12 29 (9 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th at th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al at ta ch es to se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs , in pa rt, be cau se

th e jud ge an d pr os ecu to r co nt in ue to be ar gr av e res po ns ib il it ie s, bo th to th e accu se d

an d t o t he bro ad er co m

m un it y ).

-5

-The Pres le y Co ur t fo un d it un ne ces sa ry , whe n sp eak in g of the co ex is te nc e of

th e Fi rs t an d Si xt h Am en dm en ts ' pu bl ic tri al rig ht s, "t o sp ecu la te whe th er or in wha t

ci rcu m st an ces th e reac h or pr ot ect io ns of on e m ig ht be gr eat er th an th e ot h e r , " bu t

in ti m at ed th at do in g so wou ld req ui re a le gi ti m at e reas on to gi ve on e who as se rts a

Fi rs t Am en dm en t pr iv il eg e gr eat er rig ht s to in si st o n pu bl ic pr oc eed in gs th an th e

accu s e d h a s

. 13 0 S. Ct

. at 72 4. Em ph as iz in g th at th e accu se d's Si xt h Am en dm en t

pu bl ic tri al rig ht is no t to be ta ke n li gh tl y , th e Co ur t rei te rat ed th at "'[o ]ur cas es ha ve

un ifo rm ly reco gn iz ed th e pu bl ic -tr ia l gu aran te e as on e crea te d for th e be ne fit of th e

de fen da nt ,'" an d th at " [ t ]h e r e c ou ld be no ex pl an at io n fo r ba rri ng th e accu se d fro m

rai si ng a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th at is un m is ta ka bl y fo r hi s or he r be ne fit ." Id

. (q uo ti ng

Gan ne tt Co . v. DePa sq ua le , 44 3 U.S. 3 68 , 38 0 (1 97 9) ).

Acco rd in gl y , we lo ok to th e Co ur t's gu id an ce to det erm in e whe th er the Si xt h

Am en dm e n t pu bl ic tri al rig ht at ta ch es at se nt en ci ng

. To do so , as in fo rm ed by th e

Co ur t's Fi rs t Am en dm en t pu bl ic acce ss ju ris pr ud en ce, we m us t de te rm in e whe th er

se nt e n c i n g h eari ng s are tra di ti on al ly co nd uc te d in an op en fas hi on , an d whe th er

pu bl ic acce ss op erat es to cu rb pro se cu to ria l o r jud ic ia l m is co nd uc t an d fu rth ers th e

pu bl ic in te res t in un de rs ta nd in g th e c r i mi na l jus ti ce syste m

. Pres s- Ent er. Co

. v.

Su pe r. Ct

. of Cal

. fo r th e Cn ty. of Ri ve rs id e, 47 8 U.S. 1, 8 (1 98 6)

. St at ed di ffer en tl y ,

we tu rn ou r an al ys i s to whe th er pu bl ic acce ss at a se nt en ci ng he ari ng pl ay s a

si gn ifi can t p o s it iv e ro le in it s fu nc ti on in g su ch th at th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

at ta ch es

. Id

. at 8; se e al so W al le r, 46 7 U.S. at 46 -4 7 (h ol di ng th at th e in te res ts an d

ai m s of the Six th Am en dm en t wer e n o l es s pres si ng at su pp res si on he ari ng s, whic h

of te n a re as im

po rta nt as t he tri al it se lf)

.

Pers ua si ve to th e W al le r Co ur t, fo r e x a mp l e, was th e fact th at su pp res si on

he ari ng s, li ke se nt en ci ng he ari ng s, oft en res em bl e be nc h tri al s, whe re wit ne ss es are

swo rn a n d t e s t i fy

, an d of co ur se , co un se l arg ue th ei r po si ti on s. And

, jus t li ke

se nt en ci ng he ari ng s, "[t ]he ou tc om e [o f su pp res si on he ari ng s] freq ue nt ly de pe nd s on

a res ol ut io n of fact ua l m at te rs

. " W al le r, 46 7 U.S. at 47

. The se fact or s weig he d

-6

-fav or ab ly i n th e Co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at "[t ]he ne ed fo r an op en pr oc eed in g may

be pa rti cu la rly st ro ng wit h res pe ct to su pp res si on he ari ng s." Id

. Sen te nc in g he ari ng s

ha ve al so hi st or ic al ly be en op en to th e pu bl ic

. Uni te d Stat es v. Alcan ta ra, 396 F.3 d

18 9, 19 7 (2 d Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( di sc us si ng th e hi st or ic al op en ne ss of se nt en ci ng he ari ng s

wh i l e a n al y zi ng th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al ); In re W as h. Po st Co

., 80 7 F.2 d 38 3, 38 9 (4 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (s am e). "Nu m ero us cas es fro m ov er a cen tu ry ag o

de sc rib e se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs he ld in op en co ur t." Alca nt ara, 39 6 F

. 3 d at 19 7.

Too

, se nt en ci ng he ari ng s are "t ria l li ke " in th a t wit ne ss es are swo rn an d te st ify,

fact ua l de te rm in at io ns are m ad e, an d co un se l arg ue th ei r po si ti on s. "[T]he va lu es of

en co ur ag in g wit ne ss es to co m e fo rward an d di sc ou r a g i n g p e rjury rem ai n sa li en t at

se nt en ci ng , be cau se th e pa rti es m ay pr es en t wit ne ss es at se nt en ci ng ." Ri ve ra, 68 2

F

. 3d at 12 28

. The se fact or s weig h fav or ab ly in ou r de te rm in at io n th at t h e S i x t h

Am en dm en t p ub li c tr ia l ri gh t at ta ch es at s en te nc in g.

The re are ad di ti on al fact or s th at in fo rm ou r de te rm in at io n to da y reg ard in g th e

accu se d's Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to pu bl ic acce ss at se nt en ci ng

. Fi rs t, ha vi ng no te d

th at th e juri s p r u d e n c e ad dr es si ng th e pu bl ic tri al rig ht in th e co nt ex t of th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t in fo rm s ou r an al y si s; th e Seco nd

, Fo ur th

, Fi fth

, S e v e n th

, an d Nin th

Ci rcu it s ha ve he ld th at th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t pu bl ic tri al rig ht ap pl ie s at se nt en ci ng

. Alca nt ara, 39 6 F.3 d at 19 6- 99 ; In re W as h. Po st Co

., 80 7 F

. 2 d a t 3 8 8 -8 9; Hears t
Newsp ap ers , L.L.C. v. Card en as -Gu il le n, 64 1 F.3 d 16 8, 17 6 (5 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Epp in ge r, 4 9 F.3 d 12 44

, 12 52 -5 3 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 ); se e al so CBS, In c. v.

Uni te d St at es Dis t. Ct

. fo r th e Cen t. Dist

. of Cal

., 76 5 F.2d 82 3, 82 5 (9t h Cir. 19 85 )
(h ol di ng th at th e p ub li c an d p res s h av e a rig ht of acce ss to va rio us do cu m en ts fil ed

in co nn ect io n wit h se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs ). In jux ta po si ti on wit h th es e ho ld in gs , as

no te d earl ie r, th e Su pr e me C o u r t ha s m ad e cl ear th at th e pu bl ic tri al gu aran te e was

a sp eci al -p ro te ct io n rig ht crea te d fo r th e be ne fit of th e de fen da nt

, se e Pres le y , 13 0 S.

Ct

. at 72 4, an d th us it wou ld se em ax io m at ic th at th e accu se d at th e ve ry le as t ha s an

eq ua l Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to p u b l ic acce ss at se nt en ci ng

. As is th e cas e in th e

co nt ex t of j ur or se le ct io n pro ceed in gs , "t he re is no le gi ti m at e reas on [in th e co nt ex t

-7

-of se nt en ci ng he ari ng s] to gi ve on e who as se rts a Fi rs t Am en dm en t pr iv il eg e gr eat er

rig ht s to in si st on pu bl ic pr oc eed in g s t ha n th e accu se d ha s." Pres le y , 13 0 S. Ct

. at

72 4.

Seco nd

, hi gh li gh ti ng th e i mp or ta nc e of se nt en ci ng he ari ng s ge ne ral ly, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at "s en te nc in g is a cri ti cal st ag e of th e cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

at whi ch [a de fen da nt ] is en ti tl ed to th e effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l." Gard ne r v.

Fl or id a, 43 0 U.S. 34 9, 35 8 (1 97 7) ; se e al so Mem pa v. Rh ay , 38 9 U.S. 12 8, 13 4, 13 7
(1 96 7) (rec og ni zi ng th e "cr it ic al na tu re" of se nt en ci ng in cri m in al pr oc eed in gs su ch

th at th e rig ht to co un se l at ta ch es ). So m e co ur ts

, in th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t pu bl ic tri al

acce ss an al y si s, ha ve fu rth e r h e l d t ha t, in fact

, se nt en ci ng is so in te gr al to th e tri al

pr oc es s th at it is cert ai nl y co nt em pl at ed by th e co ns ti tu ti on al la ng ua ge

. The se co ur ts

de du ce th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at th ere is a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht

of acce ss at t r i a l

, l o g ic al ly ap pl ie s to se nt en ci ng be cau se th e la tt er is who ll y

co nt em pl at ed by the for m er.

"Se nt en ci ng m ay

. . . be vi ewed as wit hi n th e sc op e of th e cri m in al tri al

it se lf. Sen te nc in g can oc cu r be fo re th e te rm in at io n of th e tri al

pr oc eed in g, an d, ev en if it oc cu rs in a se pa rat e he ari ng , it cl e a r l y

am ou nt s to t h e c ul m in at io n of th e tri al

. Mo reo ve r, ev en if

. . .

se nt en ci ng he ari ng s are no t co ns id ered a pa rt of th e tri al it se lf, th ey are

su rel y as m

uc h an in te gr al pa rt of a cr im in al pr os ecu ti on as are

pr el im in ary pr ob ab le -cau se he ari ng s, su pp res si on he ari ng s, or ba il

he ari ng s, all of whi ch ha ve be en he ld to be su bjec t t o t he pu bl ic 's Fi rs t
Am en dm en t ri gh t o f acc es s."

Alca nt ara, 39 6 F.3 d at 19 6- 97 (q uo ti ng In re W as h. Po st Co

., 80 7 F.2 d at 38 9)

. W hi le

th es e ho ld in gs are no t de te rm in at i v e i n ou r in st an t an al y si s, th ey in fo rm ou r

co nc lu si on th at th e Si xt h Am en dm en t p ub li c tr ia l ri gh t at ta ch es at s en te nc in g.

-8

-In li gh t of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t pu bl ic tri al acce ss juri sp ru de nc e, th e em ph as is
by th e Su pr em e Co ur t th at th e rig ht was crea te d sp eci fic al ly fo r th e b e n e f i t o f th e

accu se d, th e Su pr em e Co ur t's remi n d e r reg ard in g th e cri ti cal na tu re of se nt en ci ng

he ari ng s th em se lv es , a n d

, mo st im po rta nt ly, ou r co nc lu si on th at pu bl ic acce ss at a

se nt en ci ng he ari ng pl ay s a si gn ifi can t po si ti ve ro le in it s fu nc ti on in g an d fu rth ers th e

be ne fit s so ug ht to be affo rd ed th e accu se d un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, we ho ld th at

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to pu bl ic acce ss at ta ch es at se nt en ci ng

. Acco rd in gl y , we

m ov e on to de te rm in e whe th er th e di st ric t cou rt, in th is in st an ce, vi ol at ed th at rig ht

.

The Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o pu bl ic acce ss is

, ho wev er, not ab so lu te

. And

,

we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng to cl os e th e co ur t r o o m u n de r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Farm er, 32 F.3 d 36 9, 37 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). The rig ht m us t
"g iv e way in cert ai n cas es to ot he r rig ht s or in te res ts

, su ch as th e de fen da nt 's rig ht to

a fai r tri al or th e go ve rn m en t's in te res t in in hi bi ti ng d is cl os ur e of se ns it iv e

in fo rm at io n." W al le r, 46 7 F.3 d at 45

. In rare ci rcu m st an ces , whe n co m pl et e cl os ur e

is co nt em pl at ed

,

[t]he pr es um

pt io n of op en ne ss m ay be ov erco m e on ly by an ov erri di ng in te res t ba se d on fin di ng s th at cl os ur e i s e s se nt ia l to pr es erv e hi gh er

va lu es an d i s n arro wly ta il or ed to ser ve th at in te res t. The in te res t i s t o be art ic ul at ed al on g wit h fin di ng s sp eci fic en ou gh th at a rev ie win g co ur t

can de te rm in e whe th er t he clo su re o rd er was pro pe rly ent ered

.

Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

In ord er t o c om

pl et el y clo se a tr ia l o r si m il ar p ro ceed in g,

th e pa rty se ek in g to cl os e th e he ari ng m us t ad va nc e an ov erri di ng in te res t th at is li ke ly to be pr ejud i c e d

, th e cl os ur e m us t be no br oa de r

t h a n ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect th at in te res t, th e tri al co ur t m us t co n s i d e r

-9

-re a s o n ab le al te rn at iv es to cl os in g th e pr oc eed in g, an d it m us t m ak e fin di ng s ad eq ua te to su pp or t t he clo su re.

Id . at 4 8.

Howev er, "we ha ve he ld th at whe re th e tri al co ur t or de rs on ly a pa rti al cl os ur e,

th ere n e e d on ly be a sh owi ng of a 'su bs ta nt ia l reas on ' fo r th e pa rti al cl os ur e, as

op po se d to W al le r's 'ov erri di ng in te res t' req ui rem en t." Uni te d St at es v. Pet te rs , 66 3

F.3 d 37 5, 38 3 (8 th C i r

. 20 11 ) (as su m in g fo r pu rp os es of an al y si s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t's pr oh ib it io n of th e us e of a wit ne ss 's nam e du rin g a pr et ria l pro ceed in g was a

pa rti al cl os ur e), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 24 17 (2 01 2)

. W he th e r a cl os ur e is to ta l or

pa rti al

, acco rd in g to th is ci rcu it 's pr eced en t, de pe nd s no t on ho w lo ng a tri al is cl os ed

, bu t rat he r who is ex cl ud ed du rin g th e pe rio d of ti m e in qu es ti on

. Thu nd er, 43 8 F.3 d

at 86 8 (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e ex cl us io n of th e m em be rs of th e p u b l i c an d th e pr es s

du rin g a ch il d vi ct im 's te st im on y is a to ta l cl os ur e of th e co ur tro om ); Farm er, 32 F.3 d

at 37 0- 71 (o rd eri ng al l sp ect at or s ot he r th an th e m em be rs of th e vi ct im 's fam il y fro m

th e co ur tro om du rin g th e ba la nc e of th e vi ct im 's te st im on y was a pa rti al cl os ur e); se e

al so W oo ds v. Kuh lm an n, 97 7 F.2 d 74

, 75 -6 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ) (o rd eri ng al l m em be rs of

th e de fen da nt 's fam il y fro m th e co ur tro om aft er th e prose cu tor in fo rm ed th e jud ge th at

a wit ne ss was t erri fie d o f ret al ia ti on fro m th e fam il y

was a pa rti al clo su re).

"Th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th is lo wer[, 'su bs ta nt ia l reas on '] st an da rd is th at a pa rti al

cl os ur e do es no t im

pl ic at e th e sa m e se crec y an d fai rn es s co nc ern s th at a to ta l cl os ur e

do es ." Pet te rs , 66 3 F.3 d at 38 3 (in te rn al qu ot at i o n s o mi t te d)

. So

, a pa rti al cl os ur e

do es no t ris e to th e le ve l of a Si xt h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n if: (1 ) th ere is a su bs ta nt ia l

in te res t li ke ly to be pr ejud ic ed

, (2 ) th e cl os ur e is no br oa de r th an ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect

th at in te res t, (3 ) th e tri al co ur t co ns id ers reas on ab le al te rn at iv es to cl os in g t h e

p r o c e e di ng , an d (4 ) th e tri al co ur t m ak es fin di ng s ad eq ua te to su pp or t th e cl os ur e.

Farm er, 32 F.3 d at 37 1. Add it io na ll y , ev en th ou gh a tri al co ur t m us t m ak e su ffi ci en t

fin d i ng s to al lo w th e rev ie win g co ur t to de te rm in e whe th er th e pa rti al cl os ur e was

-1 0-pr op er, in th is ci rcu it

, "s pe ci fic fin di ng s by th e di st ric t co ur t are no t ne ces sa ry if we

can gl ean su ffi ci en t s up po rt f or a pa rti al tem

po rary clo su re fro m

th e rec or d." Id.

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t, no ti ng th e ab se nc e of pr es s rep res en ta ti on at th e

pr oc eed in g, rev ie wed it s po ss ib le al te rn at iv es an d cl eare d Tho m ps on 's fam il y fro m

th e co ur tro om du rin g Cam pb el l's te st im on y , a pa rti al cl os ur e. Fro m th e reco rd

, it is

cl ear th at Tho m

ps on 's fam il y m em

be rs were th e on ly pe op le in th e ga ll ery who were

no t cou rt st aff. And

, ev en th ou gh th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t m ak e a th or ou gh reco rd

art ic ul at in g th e su bs ta nt ia l reas on it co nt em pl at ed pr io r to it s pa rti al cl os ur e, th e

reco rd is su ffi ci en t fo r th is co ur t, on ap pe a l

, to do so

. Hav in g m ad e su ch a rev ie w,

we fi nd no ab us e o f di sc ret io n b y th e d is tri ct co ur t.

The go ve rn m en t's in te res t in pr ot ect in g it s wit ne ss a nd th e wit ne ss 's co nc ern

fo r hi s own sa fet y jus ti fy th e pa rti al cl os in g in th is cas e. See Pres le y , 13 0 S. Ct

. at

72 5 (rec og ni zi ng th at sa fet y co nc ern s an d th reat s co ul d cert ai nl y be co nc ret e en ou gh

reas on s to warra nt cl os in g a tri al ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Add is on , No . 1 1- 81 05

, 2 0 1 3 WL 6 75 24 0, at *4 (1 0t h Ci r. Feb

. 26

, 20 13 ) (fo cu si ng on on e reas o n

al on e

– wit ne ss in ti m id at io n– be cau se th at reas on by it se lf su pp or ts affi rm an ce of a

di st ric t co ur t's pa rti al cl os ur e). Dete ct iv e Co at es cl earl y la id ou t C a mpb el l's

ex pr es se d co nc ern an d ne rv ousn es s ab out his safet y an d well -b ei ng sh ou ld Tho m ps on

fin d ou t th at Cam

pb el l ha d pr ov id ed th e in fo rm at io n. Tha t th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

he ar o f Cam

pb el l's fear s fr om

Cam pb el l's own li ps is of n o co nc ern

. The co ur t h ad

th e in fo rm at io n. Too

, th e co ur tro om was no t cl eare d un ti l Cam pb el l, th e la st wit ne ss ,
te st ifi ed

. Bec au se th e on ly pe op le as ke d to le av e were Tho m ps on 's fam il y m em

be rs ,

an d gi ve n th e ev id en ce of Cam pb el l's fear of te st ifyin g in th ei r pr es en ce, th e cl os ur e

was no br oa de r th an ne ces sa ry an d we can th in k of no ot he r al te rn at iv es ba se d on th is

reco rd th at wou ld le ad us to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret i o n in

th is reg ard

.

-1 1-Co ns id eri ng th e reco rd be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, whi ch la id ou t Cam pb el l's

ex pr es se d fear of te st ifyin g ag ai ns t Tho m ps on , an al le ge d ga ng m em be r in vo lv ed in

a d riv e-b y sh oo ti ng , who was im pl ic at ed in ot he r ga ng -rel at ed , vi ol en t ac ti vi ti es by

ot he r wit ne ss es ; we fin d no a b u s e of di sc ret io n in th e co ur t's co nc lu si on th at

Tho m ps on 's fam il y sh ou l d b e ex cl ud ed fro m th e co ur tro om du rin g Cam pb el l's

te st im on y

. See Add is on , 20 13 W L 67 52 40

, at *4 (co ll ect in g cas es th at ha ve up he ld

cl os ur e to pro te ct tes ti fy in g wi tn es se s)

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo rg oi ng reas o ns , as no te d at th e ou ts et

, we fin d no co ns ti tu ti on al

in fir m it y in th e d is tri ct co ur t's sen te nc in g o f Tho m ps on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

.

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng

.

I writ e se pa rat el y be cau se al th ou gh I wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

to or de r a pa rti al cl os ur e, I w o u l d r eco gn iz e Tho m ps on ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to a

pu bl ic sen te nc in g u nd er t he Fif th Am en dm en t, ra th er t ha n t he Six th

.

The Si xt h Am en dm en t gu ar a n te es th at “ [i]n al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e

accu se d sh al l en

joy th e rig ht to a sp eed y an d pu bl ic tri al

. . . .” Tho m ps on arg ue s, an d

th e Co ur t to da y ap pa ren tl y ag rees , th at se nt en ci ng is a ph as e of “ tri al ” as th e wor d is

us ed in th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s on ly “ as su m e[d ] arg ue nd o

th at se nt en ce is pa rt of th e tri al f o r p u r p o s e s o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.” Pol la rd v.

Uni te d St at es , 35 2 U.S. 35 4, 36 1 (1 95 7) (h ol di ng th at as su m in g pe ti ti on er ha d a Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht to a sp eed y se nt en ci ng , th e rig ht was no t vi ol at ed ). The Su pr em e

Co ur t h as , ho wev er, o bs erv ed th at “ a pr os ecu ti on te rm in at es on ly wh en sen te nc e is

im po se d. ” Br a d l ey v. Uni te d St at es , 41 0 U.S. 60 5, 60 9 (1 97 3)

. Sen te nc in g

-1 2-pr oc eed in gs , th en , m ay co m pr is e th e la tt er ph as e of “ al l crim in al pr os ecu ti on s,” bu t

are t he y pa rt o f a “ tri al ”? I co nc lu de th ey are n ot

. 2

“ The Co ns ti tu ti on was w r i t t e n to be un de rs to od by th e vo te rs ; it s wor ds an d
ph ras es were us ed in th ei r no rm al an d or di na r y as di st in gu is he d fro m te ch ni cal

m ean in g

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ra gu e , 28 2 U.S. 71 6, 7 3 1 ( 1 9 3 1)

. The Seco nd

Ci rcu it Co ur t of App eal s rece nt ly pr ov id e d a t h or ou gh an al y si s of th e rel at io ns hi p

be twee n se nt en ci ng an d tri al at th e ti m e of th e na ti on ’s fo un di ng

. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Ray

, 57 8 F.3 d 18 4, 19 5 (2 d Ci r. 20 09 ). In pa rti cu la r, th e Ray co ur t ob se rv ed th at 3

Si r W il li am Bl ack st on e, who se writ in g s e x e r te d co ns id erab le in flu en ce on th e

Fo un de rs , di st in gu is he d b et ween tri al an d s en te nc in g. Bl ack st on e’s Co m m en ta rie s

di sc us s th e pr oc es se s fo r ad jud ic at in g g ui lt or in no cen ce in a ch ap te r en ti tl ed “ Of

Tria l an d Co nv ic ti on ,” wh i l e a s ub se qu en t ch ap te r, “ Of Ju dg m en t an d Its

Co ns eq ue nc es ,” “ co ns id er[s ] th e ne xt st ag e of c r i m in al pr os ecu ti on , aft er tri al an d

co nv ic ti on are pa st .” Id

. at 19 5 (q uo ti ng 4 W

. Bl ack st on e, Co m m en ta rie s on th e Laws

of Eng la nd 36 8 (1 76 9) ); se e al so App re nd i v. New Jer

s e y , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 46 6, 47 8 n.4
(2 00 0) (“ ‘[A] fte r t r i a l an d co nv ic ti on are pa st ,’ th e de fen da nt is su bm it te d to

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed a Si xt h Am e n d ment rig ht to effe ct iv e 2

as si st an ce of co un se l du rin g se nt en ci ng

. Se e su pr a p. 8 (q uo ti ng Gar dn er v. Flo ri da

, 43 0 U.S. 34 9, 35 8 (1 97 7) ). As t h e S i x t h Am en dm en t ex pl ai ns , “ in al l cri m in al

pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d sh al l en joy

. . . th e Ass is ta nc e of Co un se l fo r hi s de fen ce.”
The refo re th at “ se nt en ci ng is a cri ti cal st ag e of th e cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ” tri gg eri ng th e at ta ch m en t of the Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l, Gar dn er , 43 0 U.S. at 35 8,

te ll s u s n ot hi ng of wh et he r se nt en ci ng is als o p art of a “ tri al ,” cau si ng th e ri gh t t o a

pu bl ic pro ceed in g t o a tt ach

.

The Seco nd Ci rcu it co nd uc te d it s an al y si s in th e co nt ex t of an as se rte d Si xt h 3

Am en dm en t rig ht to a sp eed y , rat he r th an pu bl ic

, se nt en ci ng

. Non et he le ss , th e va st

m ajor it y o f i t s w or k is di rect ly ap pl ic ab le to th e in st an t cas e. In th e co nt ex t of th e ph ras e “ sp eed y an d pu bl ic tri al ,” I se e no reas on to de fin e th e no un “ tri al ” in on e way whe n th e ad

jecti ve “ sp eed y ” m od ifi es it a n d in an ot he r way whe n th e ad jecti ve

“ pu bl ic ” m od ifi es it

.

-1 3-‘j ud gm en t’ by th e co ur t, 4 Bl ack st on e 36 8— th e st ag e ap pr ox im at in g in m od ern te rm s

th e im po si ti on of se nt en ce.”)

. The Seco nd Ci rcu it al so ci te d to earl y d e c i s i o n s of

Am eri can co ur ts

, whi ch si m il arl y wro te of tri al an d se nt en ci ng as di st in ct ph as es of

a cri m in al pro se cu ti on

. Id

. at 1 95 -9 6.

Nor is su ch a bi fu rcat ed co nc ep ti on of tri al an d se nt en ci ng p a rti cu la rly al ie n

to ou r m od ern un de rs ta nd in g of the se face ts of crim in al pr oc eed in gs

. Fo r ex am pl e,

th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e co ns id er “ Tria ls ” in a se rie s of ru le s se pa rat e

a n d ap art fro m th e ru le s in vo lv in g “ Sen te nc in g an d Ju dg m en t.” As th e Ra y c o u r t

co nc lu de d, “ [t]he st ru ct ur e of th e Ru le s refl ect s an un de rs ta nd in g th at tri al s co nc lu de

wit h th e an no un cem en t of a ve rd ic t of gu il ty or no t gu il ty, an d se nt en ci ng ta ke s pl ace

aft er tri al .” Id

. at 19 6. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s of te n de sc rib ed se nt en ci ng as a po st

tri al ph as e. Se e, e.g

. , La

fl er v. Co op er , 55 8 U.S.---, 13 2 S. Ct

. 13 76

, 13 85 -8 6 (2 01 2) 4

To be su re, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s so m et im es , bu t no t al way s, refe rred to th e 4

gu il t an d pe na lt y “ ph as es ” o f cap it al m ur de r tr ia ls

. Co mpa re Ca li fo rn ia v. Bro wn , 47 9 U.S. 53 8, 53 9 (1 98 7) an d Est el le v. Smi th

, 45 1 U.S. 4 5 4

, 4 6 2

- 6 3 ( 19 81 ) wi th

Deck v. Mis so ur i

, 54 4 U.S. 62 2, 63 0 (2 00 5) (“ The co ns id erat io ns th at m il it at e ag ai ns t
th e ro ut in e us e of vi si bl e sh ack le s du rin g th e gu il t ph as e of a cri m in al tr ia l ap pl y wit h

li ke fo rce to pe na lt y pr oc eed in gs in cap it al c a s e s

. ” ( em ph as is ad de d) ) an d Ake v. Okla ho ma , 4 70 U.S. 6 8, 83 (1 98 5)

. I do no t in te rp ret su ch refe ren ces as p r o o f th at

se nt en ci ng i s n e c e s sa ril y a ph as e of a Si xt h Am en dm en t “ tri al .” The se rem ark s

ap pe ar to be li m it ed to cap it al cas es , whi ch ge ne ral ly in vo lv e un iq ue ly “el a bo rat e

se nt en ci ng p r o c e d u r e s

. . . be cau se of co ns tra in ts [th e Co ur t] ha [s ] sa id th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t p la ces on cap it al se nt en ci ng .” Rin g v. Ari zo na , 53 6 U.S. 58 4, 60 6 (2 00 2)

. As a res ul t of th es e co ns tra in ts

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at ag gr av at in g fact or s th at se rv e as pr ed ic at es fo r th e im po si ti on of th e de at h pe na lt y m us t be fo un d by a ju r y, b e cau se th ey are “ th e fu nc ti on al eq ui va le nt of an el em en t of a gr eat er of fen se .” Id

. at 60 9 (q uo ti ng App re nd i

, 50 3 U.S. at 49 4 n.1 9)

. Des pi te th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s reco gn it io n th at se nt en ci ng d u r i n g a cap it al pr oc eed in g “ in m an y res pe ct s

res em bl es a tri al on th e is su e of gu il t or in no cen ce,” th es e si m il ari ti es no ne th el es s do

“ no t m ean th at it is li ke a tri al in res pe ct s si gn ifi can t to th e Si xt h Am en d men t’s

gu aran te e of a jury tri al .” Sp az ia no v. Flo ri da

, 46 8 U.S. 44 7, 45 8- 59 (1 98 4)

. Acco rd in gl y , in ke ep in g w i t h th e ab se nc e of a Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a jury

-1 4-(“ The Si xt h Am en dm en t req ui res effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l at cri ti cal st ag es of

a cri m in al pr oc eed in g. Its pr ot ect io ns are no t de si gn ed si m pl y to pr ot ect th e tri al

. . . . The pr eced en ts al so es ta bl is h th at th ere ex is ts a rig ht to co un se l du rin g se nt en ci ng in

bo th no nc ap it al an d cap it al cas es .” (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om i t t e d ) ); Ala ba ma v. Smi th

, 49 0 U.S. 79 4, 80 1- 03 (1 98 9) (h ol di ng th at “ th ere i s no ba si s fo r a pr es um pt io n of

vi nd ic ti ve ne ss whe re a se co nd se nt en ce im po se d aft er a tri al is h e av ie r th an a fir st

se nt en ce im

po se d aft er a gu il ty pl ea”) ; W il li ams v. New Y

or k

, 33 7 U.S. 24 1, 24 6- 47
(1 94 9) (d is cu ss in g “ th e hi st or ic al ba si s” an d “ so un d pr act ic al reas on s” fo r “ di ffer en t

ev id en ti ary ru le s go ve rn in g tri al an d s en te nc in g pr oc ed ur es ”). Fu rth erm or e, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t al read y ha s im pl ic it ly co nc lu de d th at se nt en ci ng is no t pa rt of a tri al

. Alt ho ug h th e Si xt h Am en d men t “ rig ht of tri al by jury in cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s” is

well es ta bl is he d, Ca ll an v. W il so n , 12 7 U.S. 54 0, 55 0 (1 88 8)

, “ th ere is no Si xt h

Am en dm en t r i g h t to jury se nt en ci ng ,” McMil la n v. Pen ns yl va ni a , 47 7 U.S. 79

, 93
(1 98 6)

. If se nt en ci ng were su bs um ed w i t h i n a Si xt h Am en dm en t “ tri al ,” th es e

ho ld in gs wou ld be irr eco nc il ab le

.

Our co ll eag ue s on th e Nin th Ci rcu it Co ur t of Appe al s rece nt ly ad dr es se d th is

is su e an d, la rg el y be cau se th ey ha d al read y reco gn iz ed a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of

acce ss to se nt e n c i n g pr oc eed in gs , th ey in te rp ret ed th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a

pu bl ic tri al as al so en co m pa ss in g se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs

. S e e Uni te d St at es v.

Rive ra , 68 2 F.3d 12 23

, 12 29 (9t h C ir. 2 01 2) . In fo cu si ng on th e be ne fit s gen erat ed
by a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to a pu bl ic se nt en ci ng , th e Rive ra co ur t ad op te d a si m il ar

an al y si s to th e on e th e Co ur t em pl oys to da y

. I fin d th e Ray co ur t’s a p p r oa ch m or e

pe rs ua si ve fo r two pr im ary reas on s. Fi rs t, as th e Su pr em e C o u r t ha s co ns is te nt ly

ex pl ai ne d, co ns ti tu ti on al in te rp ret at io n sh ou ld be te th ered to th e c o mm o n m ean in g

se nt en ci ng , th e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e Si xt h Am en dm en t do es no t req ui re a jury,

rat he r th an a jud ge , to im po se th e de at h pe na l t y. I d

. a t 45 8- 65 ; se e al

so Rin g , 53 6

U.S. at 61 2 (Sca li a, J., co nc ur rin g) (“ W ha t to da y ’s de ci si on sa y s is th at th e jury m us t
f in d th e ex is te nc e of th e fa ct th at an ag gr av at in g fact or ex is te d. Tho se St at e s t h a t
le av e th e u lt im at e li fe-o r-d eat h d eci si on to th e jud ge m ay co nt in ue to do so

. . . .”).

-1 5-of th e te xt at th e ti m e of th e na ti on ’s fo un di ng , an d su ch “ in te rp ret at io n wil l b e

ad op te d, wha te ve r wil l be th e co ns eq ue nc es .” Bri sc oe v. Ban k of Co mmon wea lt h of

Ky.

, 36 U.S. 25 7, 28 2 (1 83 7) ; se e al so Dis tr ic t of Co lu mbi a v. Hell er , 55 4 U.S. 57 0,

57 6- 77 (2 00 8)

. The Ray co ur t, by fo cu si ng on th e m ean in g of tri al in us e at th e ti m e

of th e na ti on ’s fo un di ng , is fai th fu l to th is in st ru ct io n; in co nt ras t, th e Rive ra co ur t

an d th e Co ur t to da y la rg el y rel y on th e co ns eq ue nc es of th ei r de ci si on —n am el y th e

ad va nt ag es th at f

l o w f r o m t he reco gn it io n of a Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic

se nt en ci ng —t o jus t i f

y th ei r in te rp ret at io n. W ei gh in g at te nd an t be ne fit s is no t th e

to uc hs to ne of th is an al y si s. I do no t di sp u te th at al th ou gh th e be ne fit s of a pu bl ic

se nt en ci ng , jus t li ke th e be ne fit s “ of a pu bl ic tri al [,] are freq ue nt ly in ta ng ib le

, di ffi cu lt

to pr ov e, or a m at te r of ch an ce, th e Fram ers pl ai nl y th ou gh t th em no ne th el es s real .”

W al le r v. Geo rg ia

, 46 7 U.S. 39

, 49 n. 9 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. Yet th e di st in ct io n be twee n “ tri al ”

an d “ se nt en ci ng ” in di cat es th ere is no Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic se nt en ci ng ,

an d t h e c r eat io n of sa lu ta ry be ne fit s as a bypro du ct of reco gn iz in g a co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht sh ou ld no t s an ct io n a st rai ne d re ad in g o f th e wor d “ tri al .”

S eco nd

, to th e ex te nt th e Nin th Ci rcu it an d th e de ci si on to da y ut il iz ed t h e

m od ern -d ay sc op e of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss to co ur t pro ceed in gs as a

le ns th ro ug h whi ch to in te rp ret th e sc op e o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t’s pu bl ic tri al

pr ov is io n, se e su

pr a pp

. 6- 8, I do no t fin d th ei r rel ia nc e to be co nc lu si ve

. The Fi rs t

Am en dm en t su rel y of

fers on e am on g m an y us efu l clu es to th e co nt ou rs of th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t. Se e Pres le

y v. Geo rg ia

, 55 8 U.S. 20 9, 13 0 S. Ct

. 72 1, 72 4 (2 01 0)

. Bu t

it is no t a de ci si ve fact or be cau se , as th is an d ot he r ci rcu it s ha ve co nc lu de d, th es e two

se ts of rig ht s are no t, in fact

, co te rm in ou s. The fir st fo ur wor ds of th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t co ns tra in it s ap pl ic at io n to cri m in al pr oc ee d in gs

. Se e Gan ne tt Co

. v.

DePas qu al e , 44 3 U.S. 36 8, 38 6- 87 (1 97 9) (“ In co ns pi cu ou s co nt ras t wit h so m e of th e

earl y st at e co ns ti tu ti on s th at pr ov id ed fo r a pu bl ic rig ht to o p e n c i v i l an d cri m in al

tri al s, th e Si xt h Am en dm en t co nf ers th e rig ht to a pu bl ic tri al on ly up on a de fen da nt

an d on ly i n a cri m in al cas e.” (fo ot no te om it te d) ). Alt ho ug h t he Su pr em e Co ur t h as

y et to reco gn iz e a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to at te nd ci vi l pr oc eed in gs , a m ajor it y of th e

-1 6-Ju st ic es ha ve im pl ie d as m

uc h. Se e Humi ns ki v. Co rs on es , 39 6 F.3 d 53

, 83 n.3 0 (2 d

C i r

. 2 00 4) (d es cri bi ng ho w “ si x of th e ei gh t si tt in g Ju st ic es ” in Rich mon d

New sp ap er

s, In c. v. Vir

gi ni a , 44 8 U.S. 55 5 (1 98 0)

, “ cl earl y im pl ie d th at th e [Fi rs t

Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss to co ur ts ] ap pl ie s to ci vi l cas es as well as cri m in al on es ”).

The ap pe ll at e co ur ts ha ve pe rs is te nt ly am pl ifi ed th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss

well be y on d th e sp he re of cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

. Se e, e.g

. , NY Ci vi l Li be rt ie s Uni on

v. NY C Tr an si t Aut h.

, 68 4 F

. 3 d 2 8 6

, 2 9 8 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 ); Detr oi t Free Pres s v.

Ash cr of t

, 30 3 F.3 d 68 1, 70 0 (6 th Ci r. 20 02 ); Pub li cker In du s., In c. v. Co he n , 73 3 F.2 d

10 59

, 10 70 (3 d Ci r. 19 84 ). Fo r ex am pl e, th is co ur t ha s “ co n c l u d e [d ] th at th e

pr ot ect io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t ex te nd s to pr oc eed in gs fo r co nt em pt ,” In re Io wa

Free do m of In

fo

. Co un ci l

, 72 4 F.2 d 65 8, 66 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ), ev en th ou gh th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e Si xt h Am en dm en t do es n o t g u a ran te e pu bl ic

co nt em pt pr oc eed in gs , Levi ne v. Uni te d St at es , 36 2 U.S. 61 0, 61 6 (1 96 0)
(“ Pro ced u r a l s a feg ua rd s fo r cri m in al co nt em pt s do no t de riv e fro m th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t. Cri m in al co nt em pt pr oc eed in gs are no t wit hi n ‘all cr i mi na l

pr os ecu ti on s’ to whi ch th at Am en dm en t ap pl ie s.”)

.

Alt ho ug h th e Pres le

y Co ur t po nd ered ov er “ [t]he ex te nt to whi ch th e Fi rs t an d

Si xt h Am en dm en t pu bl ic tri al rig ht s are co e x t e n s i v e , ” 13 0 S. Ct

. at 72 4, th e Co ur t

li ke ly was m

ul li ng ov er th e ex te nt to whi ch th ey pa rti al l y ov erl ap , rat he r th an

en vi si on in g tru ly co te rm in ou s Fi rs t an d Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s. Enfo rci ng su ch a

sym m et ry wou ld be in gr eat te ns io n with th e jud ic ia ry ’s tre nd to ward reco gn iz in g a

br oa d Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss ap pl ic ab le to ci vi l pr oc eed in gs

. The Pres le y 5

Bo th th e Nin th Ci rcu it in Rive ra an d t h e C o ur t to da y qu ot e W al le r fo r th e 5

pr op os it io n th at “ th ere can be li tt le do ub t th at th e ex pl ic it Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht of

th e acc us ed is no les s p ro te ct iv e of a pu bl ic tri al th an th e im pl ic it Fir st Am en dm en t rig ht of th e pr es s an d pu bl ic .” Su pr a p. 5. As di sc us se d ab ov e, it ha s be co m e al m os t
de ri ge ur to vi ew th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t’s rig ht of pu bl ic acce ss as reac hi ng be y on d

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t’s li m it at io n to cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s. Acco rd in gl y , th e W al le r Co ur t’s rem ark can no t m ean wha t th e Co ur t to da y im pl ie s; na m el y , th at if th e pu bl ic

-1 7-Co ur t d id see m to vi ew as ax io m at ic th e pr op os it io n th at , “ at le as t i n t he co nt ex t o f
ju r o r s e le ct io n pr oc eed in gs ,” co ur ts sh ou ld no t gr an t “ on e who as se rts a Fi rs t

Am en dm en t pr iv il eg e gr eat er rig ht s to in si st on pu bl ic pr oc eed in gs th an th e accu se d

ha s.” Id

. I in te rp ret th es e co m m en ts as ob se rv in g th at if a m em be r of th e pu bl ic ha s

a Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to at te nd pr oc eed in gs , th en so , to o, sh ou ld th e accu se d ha ve

a rig ht to ha ve th e pu bl ic pr es en t. Th e Co ur t di d no t, ho wev er, co m m an d th at th is
rig ht be de riv ed fro m

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.

The no ti on th at th e pu bl ic ’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss is m or e ex pa ns iv e

th an th e accu se d’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to pu blic pr oc eed in gs is le ss tro ub li ng th an

it in it ia ll y m ay se em be cau se th e Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t rel eg at e th e accu se d to rel y in g

so le ly on th e Si xt h Am en dm en t to br in g th ei r rig ht s in to al ig nm en t wit h th e rig ht s of

th e ge ne ral pu bl ic

. “ [I]t is no w cl ear th at th e se nt en ci ng pr oc es s, as well as th e tri al

it se lf, m us t sa ti sf y th e req ui rem en ts of th e Due Pro c e ss Cl au se

. . . . The de fen da nt

ha s a le gi ti m at e in te res t in th e ch arac te r o f th e pr oc ed ur e whi ch le ad s to th e

im po si ti on of se nt en ce

. . . .” Gar dn er v. Flo ri da

, 43 0 U.S. 34 9, 35 8 (1 97 7) (p lu ral it y

ha s a F irs t Am en dm en t ri gh t of acces s to a pa rti cu la r pr oc eed in g, th en th e wor ds of

th e Si xt h Am en dm en t m

us t be st ret ch ed so as to acco m m od at e an an al og ou s rig ht

. The re are on ly two way s fo r t h i s c o n t e n t io n to be tru e, an d bo th op ti on s in vo lv e

rep ud ia ti ng bi nd in g pr eced en t. Fi rs t, we co ul d ap pl y th e pu bl ic tri al rig ht in th e ci vi l

co nt ex t, th ereb y co nt rad ic ti ng Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s su ch as Levi ne th at li m it th e Si xt h Am en dm en t to cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

. Alt ern at iv el y , we co ul d co nt rad ic t ou r

own pr ev io us ru li ng in In re Io w a Fr eed om of In fo rma ti on Co un ci l an d res tri ct th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht of acce ss to cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

. In li eu of ei th er cho ic e, I

in te rp ret th e co m

m en t as su gg es ti ng th at th e Fi rs t an d Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts to a

pu bl ic “ tri al ” (as th e wor d is us ed in th e Si xt h Am en dm en t) do ov erl ap , wit ho ut

pr ov id in g co m

m en ta ry on th e ex te nt to whi ch th ey m ay en joy br oa de r sym

m et ry

. Bu t
ha rn es si ng th e W

al le r Co ur t’s ob se rv at io n ab ou t a cri m in al accu se d’s rig ht to a pu bl ic

tri al as pr oo f of a Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic se nt en ci ng be gs th e qu es ti on of

wha t ex act ly con st it ut es a “ tri al ” u nd er t he Six th Am en dm en t.

-1 8-op in io n)

. Thu s, I co nc lu de th at it is th e di ct at es of du e pr oc e s s u nd er th e Fi fth 6

Am en dm en t, an d no t th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, th at be st ow up on a fed eral cri m in al

de fen da nt th e rig ht to in si st up on a pu bl ic se nt en ci ng

. C f. Levi ne , 36 2 U.S. at 61 6
(h ol di ng th at

, al th ou gh th e Si xt h Am en dm en t do es no t ap pl y to co nt em pt pr oc eed in gs

be cau se th ey are no t “ cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, ” “due pr oc es s de m an ds ap pr op ria te

reg ard for th e req ui rem en ts of a pu bl ic pr oc eed in g i n c as es of c riminal co nt em pt ”);

se e al so Deck

, 54 4 U.S. at 63 2 (h ol di ng th at du e pr oc es s pr oh ib it s th e ro ut in e pr act ic e

of vi si bl y sh ack li ng de fen da nt s i n th e pr es en ce of juri es du rin g se nt en ci ng

pr oc eed in gs ); Ake

, 47 0 U.S. at 83 -8 4 (h ol di ng th at whe n th e St at e pr es en ts

ag gr av at in g ps y ch ia tri c ev id en ce du ri ng a cap it al se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in g, th e

de fen da nt ha s a d ue pro ces s ri gh t t o t he ass is ta nc e o f a p sychi at ris t).

Ju st as th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to pu bl ic tri al is no t ab so lu te

, so to o wou ld

th e di st r ic t co ur t ha ve di sc ret io n to de te rm in e whe th er th e accu se d’s Fi fth

Am en dm en t rig ht to a pu bl ic se nt en ci ng m us t y ie ld to le gi ti m at e st at e in te res ts

. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Far mer , 32 F.3 d 36 9

, 37 1- 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (u ph ol di ng un de r an

ab us e o f di sc ret io n st an da rd of rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n to pa rti al ly cl os e

th e c o u r t ro om be cau se “ th e vi ct im ’s ag e, th e br ut al na tu re of th e of fen se an d th e

vi ct im ’s well -rea so ne d fear of [th e de fen da nt ] an d hi s fam il y was m or e th an en ou gh

to jus ti fy th e de ci si on ”). A di st r i c t c o u r t m ay or de r a pa rti al or fu ll cl os ur e of th e

co ur t du rin g se nt en ci ng bu t on ly if th e co ur t fin ds th at f a c t o r s p art ic ul ar to th e

se nt en ci ng jus ti fy su ch cl os ur e. Cf

. Levi ne , 36 2 U.S. at 61 6 (“ In as m uc h as th e

pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m th us de riv es fro m th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se an d no t fro m on e of th e

e x p l i c i tl y de fin ed pr oc ed ur al sa feg ua rd s of th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . [th e ex is te nc e o f a

du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n] m

us t tu rn on th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of th e cas e

. . . . The

The Gar dn er Co ur t fu rth er ob se rv ed th at si m pl y be cau se “ du e pr oc es s ap pl ie s 6 [to se nt en ci ng ] do es no t, of co u rs e, im pl ic at e th e en ti re pa no pl y of cri m in al tri al

pr oc ed ur al rig ht s.” Id

. at 35 8 n.9

. Thi s di st in ct io n be twee n th e p r o c e d u ral du e

pr oc es s req ui red du rin g se nt en ci ng an d tri al rei n f o r c e s m y co nc lu si on th at th e two
sh ou ld no t b e co nf

la te d.

-1 9-na rro w qu es ti on is whe th er, in li gh t of th e fact s th at th e gr an d jury, pe ti ti on er an d hi s

co un se l were pr es en t th ro ug ho ut

. . . he was de ni ed du e pr oc es s be cau se th e ge ne ral

pu bl ic rem ai ne d ex cl ud ed fro m th e co ur tro om .”)

. In de te rm in in g whe th er a

de fen da nt ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s were vi ol at ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er th e

fact or s co ur ts ha ve tra di ti on al ly rel ie d up on in ga ug in g th e n e c e s s it y of a cl os ur e,

na m el y t h e Wa l l er fact or s. Cf

. Deck

, 54 4 U.S. at 62 9. I ag ree wit h th e co nc lu si on

th at wit ne ss in t i mi d a t i o n jus ti fie d th is pa rti al cl os ur e of th e co ur tro om du rin g

Tho m ps on ’s se nt en ci ng

. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se Tho m ps on ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s were

no t v io la te d, I wo ul d a ffi rm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 0-