Opinion ID: 2197952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overriding interest

Text: Bobo argues that the State's overriding interest in protecting James from intimidation and thus encouraging him to testify was not adequate in light of the evidentiary hearing the district court previously conducted on James' intimidation. Bobo argues that the State bore the burden of establishing the existence of a substantial probability of prejudice, United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir.1995), and that the State presented its best evidence of intimidation it could muster, but still failed to show that anyone deliberately intimidated James. Bobo mischaracterizes the district court's findings. The district court did not find that no one deliberately intimidated James, it found that Bobo did not deliberately intimidate James. This difference is especially relevant because Bobo was not excluded from the courtroom; the public, which included many alleged gang members, was excluded. Therefore, while the district court's findings are not irrelevant, neither are they conclusive on this issue. Furthermore, even if no one deliberately intimidated James, this does not mean that James was not intimidated. See, e.g., People v. Hok Ming Chan, 230 A.D.2d 165, 173, 656 N.Y.S.2d 22 (1997), aff'd, People v. Ming Li, 91 N.Y.2d 913, 669 N.Y.S.2d 527, 692 N.E.2d 558, 559 (1998) (Irrespective of whether these perceived threats could be tied to the men outside the courtroom, [the defendant]'s belief that the connection existed and his acute emotional reaction upon seeing the group of Chinese men outside the courtroom justified closure.). Bobo argues that, as in Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685, the State simply offered generalized gang expert testimony that did not justify closing the courtroom to the public. The record does not support this argument. In the evidentiary hearing considering whether Bobo forfeited the right to confront James, Officer Seidel testified that he identified several gang members who entered the courtroom immediately before the first time James took the witness stand and then left immediately after his testimony. Furthermore, Officer Folkens specifically testified that James claimed the reason he did not testify was because he was afraid after seeing Bobo and all the other people in the courtroom. Thus, unlike Mahkuk, there was evidence from a witness asserting that James had been intimidated or threatened. Thus, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that keeping the courtroom open was substantially likely to jeopardize the overriding interest that James testify truthfully at trial.