Opinion ID: 1597411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Simpson's Motion to Exclude the Public from the Courtroom During Questioning of Juror CodyIssue 4

Text: Defense counsel moved the court to exclude the public from the courtroom during the questioning of juror Cody because she initially requested to speak to the judge in private, she was timid when the guilty verdicts were read, and she appeared very uncomfortable before being questioned. Defense counsel expressed concern that failure to close the courtroom during the questioning would prejudice Simpson. Simpson argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion because it did not conduct an adequate inquiry into whether closure of the courtroom was necessary. This claim lacks merit. In Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla.1988), this Court held that both civil and criminal court proceedings in Florida are public events and adhere to the well established common law right of access to court proceedings and records. Id. at 116. Public trials are essential to the judicial system's credibility in a free society. Id. However, as explained by this Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So.2d 1 (Fla.1982), this proposition is counterbalanced by the proposition that courts have the inherent power to preserve order and decorum in the courtroom, as well as the responsibility to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses and to further the administration of justice. Id. at 3. Lewis articulated the prevailing test in Florida for closure of judicial proceedings, concluding that closure is justified where: 1. Closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice; 2. No alternatives are available, other than change of venue, which would protect a defendant's right to a fair trial; and 3. Closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose. 426 So.2d at 6; see also Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330, 338 (Fla.1984) (recognizing adoption of test in Lewis ), abrogated on other grounds by Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992). There is no indication in the record that the trial court failed to conduct the analysis required under Lewis. The court's ruling shows that it considered the propriety of exclusion, noting that it was required to exclude the other jurors, and balanced the rights of Simpson with the rights of the press and the victims' families. Further, Simpson failed to support his motion and argument on appeal with anything other than a bald assertion of prejudice, devoid of factual or legal support. Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Simpson's motion to exclude the public from the courtroom during the questioning of juror Cody. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in its handling of the issues arising from juror Cody's alleged recantation of her guilty verdicts.