Opinion ID: 2823793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sixth Amendment Right to a Public Trial

Text: Â¶7Â Â Â Â Â Â Both the United States and the Colorado Constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to a public trial. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Colo. Const. art. II, Â§ 16. When the trial court erroneously deprives the defendant of his public trial right, the error is structural in nature. Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, Â¶ 10, 288 P.3d 116, 119; accord United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148â49 (2006). Structural errors âare not amenable to either a harmless error or a plain error analysis because such errors affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, and are not errors in the trial process itself.â Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148. Therefore, â[t]hey require automatic reversal without individualized analysis of how the error impairs the reliability of the judgment of conviction.â People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, Â¶ 17, 304 P.3d 227, 232. 2 Â¶8Â Â Â Â Â Â Although the public trial right is enshrined in the Constitutionâand although erroneous deprivation of the right constitutes structural errorâthe right itself is not absolute. See Waller, 467 U.S. at 45. It may yield to competing interests, including âthe governmentâs interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information.â Id. The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that â[s]uch circumstances will be rareâ and that âthe balance of interests must be struck with special care.â Id. Â¶9Â Â Â Â Â Â In Waller, the Court articulated four requirements that a trial court must meet in order to validly close the courtroom. First, âthe party seeking to close the [proceeding]Â must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.â Id. at 48. Second, âthe closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest.â Id. Third, âthe trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding.â Id. Finally, the trial court âmust make findings adequate to support the closure.â Id. Regarding the third element, the Court has since reiterated that â[t]rial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.â Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215 (2010) (per curiam) (emphasis added). Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â With this framework in mind, we now consider whether the trial courtâs total closure of the courtroom violated Hassenâs Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.