Opinion ID: 2194874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Closure of the Courtroom

Text: The trial began on Thursday, February 24, 2000. After opening statements and with the courtroom open to the public, the government began its case in chief with the direct examination of the complainant, J.J. While on the stand, J.J. was very timid, often having to be reminded to speak louder and not to worry about the other people. The court noticed that to help her maintain her composure and avoid these problems while on the stand, J.J. gripped anger balls. In addition, whenever J.J. seemed distressed, the court sought to allay her discomfort. At the end of the day, the court noted during a bench conference that J.J. seems to be uncomfortable with the excess people, so in the morning we'll try to have as few people here as possible. . . . She may in the morning with fewer people here be less uncomfortable. The next morning, before resuming the direct examination of J.J., the prosecutor asked the court to close the courtroom during J.J.'s testimony: MS. HOSTIN [the prosecutor]: Your Honor, we'd invoke . . . again the rule on witnesses and ask that because we have a very young complainant in this case that has indicated a certain degree of, rather being uncomfortable with a lot of people in the courtroom, we'd ask that the Court clear the courtroom other than for people who are absolutely necessary. THE COURT: Defense? MS. SUMPTER [defense counsel]: Your Honor, the only people that I know of who are in the courtroom are people from my office and support people for Mr. McIntosh [appellant]. THE COURT: Are they necessary for the questioning of the witness? MS. SUMPTER: No, they're not, Your Honor, but we would ask for them to be allowed to remain. THE COURT: I will clear the courtroom. In balancing the matter relative to support for Mr. McIntosh and support for a 12-year-old child on the witness stand. I'll opt to support the 12-year-old child because she is, in fact, in a more vulnerable position. Clear it. Defense counsel then asked the court to allow two attorneys to remain. Because the attorneys were not essential for the questioning of J.J., the court asked these attorneys to leave, and then said, Courtroom is now cleared. Usually to clear the courtroom is to try to get a screen . . . to protect the minor child in this type of case. After the courtroom had been cleared, the only persons present were the judge, the courtroom clerk, the prosecutor, defense counsel, defense counsel's supervisor, appellant, J.J.'s guardian ad litem, and J.J.'s parents. [4] Despite these preparations, J.J. did not testify that day, Friday, February 25, because the court first needed to address some preliminary issues concerning the potential cross-examination of J.J. After these matters were resolved on Monday, February 28, the direct examination of J.J. continued in what may or may not have been open court (there is no reference in the transcript to clearing the courtroom). During an extended bench conference near the end of that day's session, J.J.'s guardian ad litem asked the court if J.J. could leave the courtroom and go to the witness room because she's looking a little anxious. The court agreed. The next morning, Tuesday, February 29, the trial was again closed during J.J.'s testimony: MS. SUMPTER: Well, actually, Your Honor, we just have a clarification question. Is the courtroom going to be open or closed while the witness is on the stand? THE COURT: We're not going to have a lot of people here. What's your pleasure? I don't seeI see two people. MS. HOSTIN: Your Honor, we'd ask that the courtroom be closed just for the tenancy [ sic ] of [J.J.'s] testimony. THE COURT: Well, turn around and look at the people who are here. MS. HOSTIN: Yes, Your Honor, we would ask that. THE COURT: Well, okay then. Clear the courtroom. It's a child. MS. SUMPTER: We would object. THE COURT: I understand. It's a child talking about a sexual attack, alleged sexual attack MS. SUMPTER: It's an adult trial, though, Your Honor. . . . It's an adult trial, Your Honor, and we would request that it remain open. THE COURT: Well, I could put her in another room and have her testify, so, and have her testify by telephone. I think having people not related to the case or necessary to the testimony step out. It's not an intrusion. In order to help this child to be comfortable in this proceeding. MS. SUMPTER: I'd ask that my objection be noted, Your Honor. THE COURT: It is noted. . . . Would you step out until this witness is complete, then you can come in. Later that day the prosecutor completed the direct examination of J.J., and the defense began its cross-examination. The following morning, Wednesday, March 1, the court cleared the courtroom once again: All right, we're going to limit the number of people here during this child's testimony as I have been doing consistently throughout this trial. When this child is no longer on the witness stand, we will have a full open access courtroom. Defense counsel again objected to the courtroom closure and asked permission for a lawyer in our office to stay. In denying that request, the court said: I understand your request. Just like I've put out the excess U.S. Attorneys, the extra other attorneys are out of here also. You just saw meno, I said you could stay because you're their supervisor, but these two attorneys at this table [must leave]. J.J.'s cross-examination continued that morning. Following the luncheon recess, the prosecutor again asked for the courtroom to be cleared, and the court agreed. When cross-examination of J.J. continued on Thursday, March 2, no request was made to clear the courtroom. [5] Nor was such a request made during redirect examination by the prosecutor or during the court's questioning near the end of that day. After J.J. finally left the stand, the courtroom was open to the public for the remainder of the trial.