Opinion ID: 2598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In re Oliver

Text: In Oliver, the Supreme Court overturned a contemner's conviction pursuant to an antiquated one-man grand jury procedure on Sixth Amendment grounds because the Michigan trial court had excluded the entire general public except the judge and his attaches. 333 U.S. at 271, 68 S.Ct. 499. The Court neither sketched a test for courtroom closures nor provided contours for the constitutional right. At most, the Court held that a defendant's right to a public trial was violated by the wholesale and unjustified exclusion of the public from an inquisitorial secret trial. See id. at 259, 278, 68 S.Ct. 499. The Oliver Court did note that without exception all courts have held that an accused is at the very least entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged. Id. at 271-72, 68 S.Ct. 499. However, we have already confirmed that this sentiment is dicta. See Yung v. Walker, 341 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir.2003). Thus, it cannot constitute clearly established federal law under AEDPA.