Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 375

214 

PRESLEY  v.  GEORGIA 

Per Curiam 

“[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance 
an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the 
closure  must  be  no  broader  than  necessary  to  protect 
that  interest,  the  trial  court  must  consider  reasonable 
alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make 
ﬁndings adequate to support the closure.”  Id., at 48. 

In  upholding  exclusion  of  the  public  at  juror  voir  dire  in 
the  instant  case,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia  concluded, 
despite  our  explicit  statements  to  the  contrary,  that  trial 
courts  need  not  consider  alternatives  to  closure  absent  an 
opposing  party’s  proffer  of  some  alternatives.  While  the 
Supreme Court of Georgia concluded this was an open ques­
tion  under  this  Court’s  precedents,  the  statement  in  Waller 
that  “the  trial  court  must  consider  reasonable  alternatives 
to  closing  the  proceeding”  settles  the  point.  Ibid.  If  that 
statement  leaves  any  room  for  doubt,  the  Court  was  more 
explicit in Press-Enterprise I: 

“Even  with  ﬁndings  adequate  to  support  closure,  the 
trial court’s orders denying access to voir dire testimony 
failed to consider whether alternatives were available to 
protect  the  interests  of  the  prospective  jurors  that  the 
trial  court’s  orders  sought  to  guard.  Absent  consider­
ation of alternatives to closure, the trial court could not 
constitutionally  close  the  voir  dire.”  464  U. S.,  at  511. 

The  conclusion  that  trial  courts  are  required  to  consider 
alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the 
parties is clear not only from this Court’s precedents but also 
from the premise that “[t]he process of juror selection is itself 
a matter of importance, not simply to the adversaries but to 
the criminal justice system.”  Id., at 505.  The public has a 
right  to  be  present  whether  or  not  any  party  has  asserted 
the  right.  In  Press-Enterprise  I,  for  instance,  neither  the 
defendant nor  the prosecution requested  an open courtroom 
during  juror  voir  dire  proceedings;  in  fact,  both  speciﬁcally 
argued  in  favor  of  keeping  the  transcript  of  the  proceed­