Opinion ID: 6323200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the public-trial right

Text: Having determined that defendant has not waived this argument, we must now consider whether the alleged courtroom closure violated defendant’s right to a public trial. Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a public trial. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20. “The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of responsibility and to the importance of their functions . . . .” Gannett Co v DePasquale, 443 US 368, 380; 99 S Ct 2898; 61 L Ed 2d 608 (1979) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The public-trial right also helps ensure that judges and prosecutors fulfill their duties ethically, encourages witnesses to come forward, and discourages perjury. Vaughn, 491 Mich at 667. Despite serving these important interests, the public-trial right is not unlimited, and circumstances may exist that warrant the closure of a courtroom during any stage of a 9 criminal proceeding. Id. at 653. In order to justify a courtroom closure, there must be “an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id. at 653, quoting Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39, 48; 104 S Ct 2210; 81 L Ed 2d 31 (1984) (quotation marks omitted).
When preserved, the erroneous denial of a defendant’s public-trial right is considered a structural error. Weaver v Massachusetts, 582 US ___, ___; 137 S Ct 1899, 1908; 198 L Ed 2d 420 (2017). Structural errors “are structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 309; 111 S Ct 1246; 113 L Ed 2d 302 (1991). Because the harm rendered by these errors is extensive but intrinsic and difficult to quantify, preserved structural errors result in automatic relief to the defendant to “ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.” Weaver, 582 US at ___; 137 S Ct at 1907. Although preserved structural errors are subject to automatic reversal, the alleged error here was forfeited. 7 In order to receive relief on a forfeited claim of constitutional error, a defendant must prove that (1) error occurred, (2) the error “was plain, i.e., clear or 7 Although the term “structural error” was coined in the context of preserved claims of errors exempt from the harmless-error standard, for brevity’s sake, and for the sake of the bench and bar moving forward, we will also use the term “structural error” to include the same type of errors, even when unpreserved. 10 obvious,” and (3) “the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Further, “[r]eversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). However, as discussed later in this opinion, there are special considerations relevant to this analysis when a forfeited structural error is at issue. Finally, we review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error. Vaughn, 491 Mich at 650. “Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich 289, 303; 505 NW2d 528 (1993) (opinion of GRIFFIN, J.).
To begin, we disagree with the lower courts’ finding that the courtroom was not closed to the public. Here, the trial court ordered “everyone in the gallery to leave the courthouse and not come back.” 8 And it further specified that the observers were not allowed to return “[f]or the remainder of the trial, all the way in to next week” and that “[t]he only person allowed to watch this trial is the mother of the young man who died.” There is no ambiguity in this language: The trial court had ordered the courtroom closed to all observers except Hanson’s 8 The court made an exception for Hanson’s mother, whose presence was expressly permitted by statute. MCL 780.761; MCL 780.752(1)(m)(ii)(C). 11 mother for the remainder of the trial. We are “left with a definite and firm conviction” that the trial court was mistaken in concluding otherwise. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich at 303. The trial court’s posttrial interpretation of this oral order as a temporary “clearing” of the courtroom ignores its own explicit instruction that the observers were not allowed to return for the remainder of trial, not just the remainder of that particular day. 9 Moreover, even accepting as true the trial court’s posttrial assertions that it did not lock the courtroom or eject any observers during the remainder of trial, the trial court’s failure to enforce or otherwise effectuate the order does not undo it. 10 The observers who were removed from the courtroom on the day of the order were directed not to return for the remainder of the trial, and they did not. The parties understood that no observers would be allowed for the 9 Specifically, at the close of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court stated, “I admit I poorly worded [the order] because I said don’t come back and I probably should have said don’t come back today,” but the trial court actually directed the observers not to return “[f]or the remainder of the trial.” 10 While the Court of Appeals found that the courtroom was not closed, it proceeded in the alternative with a plain-error analysis as follows: The trial court stated that it did not actually close the courtroom to the public and that the doors were never locked, and no one was ejected from the courtroom after Frye and the victim’s other supporters were ejected. We decline to call into question the highly respected jurist’s credibility, so we shall proceed with our analysis on the assumption that the courtroom was closed for the remainder of the trial. [People v Davis, 331 Mich App at 712 n 1.] There are established standards for reviewing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and none of these standards involves an assessment of the presiding judge’s professional reputation. See People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). The presence of legal error does not depend on a jurist’s respectability, and to the extent that the Court of Appeals adopted the trial court’s rulings and findings of fact on that basis, it erred. 12 remainder of the trial, and the trial court did not later advise them otherwise. We do not require the trial court to have ejected potential observers or taken actions to bar entry of potential observers to find that a closure order was in place. Such requirements would expose potential observers to the risk of being held in contempt of court for violating the previously rendered closure order. It would also treat defendants inequitably on the basis of the level of community interest in their prosecution, as those whose cases lack potential interested observers would be unable to meet this standard. In sum, pursuant to the plain language of the trial court’s verbal order, we find that the trial court’s order rendered the courtroom closed to the public for a majority of the trial.
Having found that the courtroom was factually closed, we hold that the decision to close the courtroom was plain error.
As discussed, to justify a courtroom closure, there must be “an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Vaughn, 491 Mich at 653, quoting Waller, 467 US at 48 (quotation marks omitted). Here, Frye’s prohibited interaction with the juror implicated the impartiality of the jury. Given defendant’s constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury, US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20, preventing interference with the jury is undoubtedly an overriding interest. The trial court thus was justified in attempting to safeguard that interest. 13 However, the trial court failed to comply with the remainder of the requirements set forth in Vaughn and Waller. First, the closure was broader than necessary to protect the impartiality of the jury. See Waller, 467 US at 48. The trial court could have banned only Frye from the courtroom, given that no other member of the public attempted to interact with the jury. It could have repeated its previous instructions to observers regarding the prohibition on juror interaction or given more detailed instructions. Or it could have had the deputy escort the jury to and from the courtroom to prevent any potential interaction with members of the public. Any of these alternatives on their own or in combination would have safeguarded the jury’s impartiality while still maintaining a public trial under the circumstances of this case. Second, the trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding. See id. As discussed, there were several alternatives to closure available to the trial court. But the trial court considered only the option of holding Frye in contempt of court. Third, the trial court also failed to make adequate factual findings to support the closure. See id. The trial court did not find that Frye’s interaction with the juror was for the purpose of interfering with court proceedings or tampering with the jury. It did not find that the result of Frye’s interaction with the juror was a biased juror. And it did not find that a closure was necessary to protect the impartiality of the jury. To the contrary, the trial court concluded that it was unnecessary to question the jurors to determine whether any were prejudiced by Frye’s interaction with the juror because it was merely a “short comment.” Without factual findings to support its conclusion, the trial court’s decision to close the courtroom was unjustified. 14 The trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Vaughn and Waller constituted error. We also conclude that the error was plain, as these requirements are well established and the trial court’s failure to comply with them is readily apparent from the record. See Carines, 460 Mich at 763. b. THE ERROR AFFECTED DEFENDANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS Having found that plain error occurred, we must now consider whether the plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights. See id. This prong of the plain-error analysis is typically satisfied by demonstrating that the plain error likely affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings. See Olano, 507 US at 734; Carines, 460 Mich at 763. We readily apply that standard in the context of nonstructural error—for example, by concluding that wrongly admitted evidence likely caused the jury to reach a guilty verdict. See Fulminante, 499 US at 307-308. But this prong presents special difficulty when presented with a structural error. Because structural errors by definition “affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds” rather than a single piece of evidence or aspect of the trial, the harm rendered by structural errors is substantial but often difficult to quantify. Id. at 310. Given these difficulties, structural errors are particularly ill-suited to an analysis of whether the error affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings. The United States Supreme Court faced similar difficulty in the context of applying the harmless-error standard to preserved structural errors. Generally, preserved errors are subject to the harmless-error rule, under which a defendant is denied relief only if the complained-of error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24; 87 S Ct 824; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967); Carines, 460 Mich at 774. But when faced 15 with applying this prejudice standard to preserved structural errors, the Court was met with the same difficulties we described earlier; specifically, that errors in the framework of the trial cause serious, but usually unquantifiable harm. Fulminante, 499 US at 289-290. The Court ultimately determined that these structural errors involved “constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error,” Chapman, 386 US at 23, and held that the proper remedy for a preserved structural error is automatic reversal, Fulminante, 499 US at 309. This Court has previously suggested that structural errors satisfy the third prong of the plain-error standard. See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 666; see also Cain, 498 Mich 108, 145; 869 NW2d 829 (2015) (VIVIANO, J., dissenting) (advocating for this Court to expressly recognize that structural errors satisfy the third prong). The harmless-error and plain-error standards require “the same kind of inquiry,” because they both require appellate courts to assess the effect of the error on the outcome of the trial court proceedings. Olano, 507 US at 734. Accordingly, just as preserved structural errors “defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards,” Fulminante, 499 US at 309, we conclude that forfeited structural errors defy analysis under the third prong of the plain-error standard. Just as the United States Supreme Court jettisoned the prejudice analysis for preserved structural errors, we similarly jettison the prejudice analysis for forfeited structural errors. Instead, we hold that because structural errors often “render a trial fundamentally unfair” and an “unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence,” Neder v United States, 527 US 1, 8-9; 119 S Ct 1827; 144 L Ed 2d 35 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted), 11 and affect the framework 11 Although the United States Supreme Court in Weaver reasoned that “not every publictrial violation will in fact lead to a fundamentally unfair trial,” the Court continued to 16 within which the trial proceeds, Fulminante, 499 US at 310, they necessarily affect a defendant’s substantial rights. 12 Accordingly, the existence of a forfeited structural error alone satisfies the third prong of the plain-error standard, and a defendant need not also show the occurrence of outcome-determinative prejudice. 13 As applied here, because the deprivation of the public-trial right is a structural error, defendant has satisfied the third prong of the plain-error standard. Vaughn, 491 Mich at 666; Weaver, 582 US at ___; 137 S Ct at 1908. c. REVERSAL IS WARRANTED We must now consider whether “the plain, forfeited error . . . seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the recognize that some structural errors do always result in fundamental unfairness, “either to the defendant in the specific case or by pervasive undermining of the systematic requirements of a fair and open judicial process.” Weaver, 582 US at ___; 137 S Ct at 1911. In the specific context of the public-trial right, the Court further recognized that its violation may result in fundamental unfairness, that the harm rendered by such a violation is difficult to quantify, and that the public-trial right protects interests of people beyond the defendant. Id. at ___; 137 S Ct at 1910. Although the violation of the public-trial right may not always result in fundamental unfairness, it does affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, and the harm rendered is sufficiently significant to support our conclusion that violation of this right necessarily affects a defendant’s substantial rights. 12 This holding is consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Olano, 507 US at 735, in which the Court suggested, but did not affirmatively hold, that forfeited structural errors may constitute “a special category of forfeited errors that can be corrected regardless of their effect on the outcome” of the trial court proceedings. 13 In so doing, we join multiple federal circuits who have held similarly. See United States v Adams, 252 F3d 276, 285-286 (CA 3, 2001); United States v Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F3d 205, 215 (CA 4, 2014); Robinson v Ignacio, 360 F3d 1044, 1061 (CA 9, 2004). 17 defendant’s innocence.” Carines, 460 Mich at 763 (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 14 We take this opportunity to hold that a forfeited structural error creates a formal presumption that this prong of the plain-error standard has been satisfied. 15 “[T]here is substantial overlap between the characteristics of structural errors (i.e., they ‘necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair’) and the standard under the fourth Carines prong (‘serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings’).” Cain, 498 Mich at 148 (VIVIANO, J., dissenting). A trial that has been rendered fundamentally unfair or had its framework affected by structural error is generally one whose fairness, integrity, or public reputation has been damaged. See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 667 (reasoning that “any error that is structural is likely to have an effect on the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v Recio, 371 F3d 1093, 1103 n 7 (CA 9, 2004) (“We note that structural error is particularly likely to satisfy [the] fourth prong [of the plain-error standard].”). Given this conceptual overlap between the third and fourth prongs of the plain-error standard and that a forfeited 14 Defendant does not argue that the error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant. 15 The concurrence asserts that this part of our holding is a sua sponte modification of the law. We disagree. Defendant prompted us to take this approach as a responsive suggestion to the part of our order that asked the parties whether a plain error occurred below. Davis, 507 Mich 853. Given that this modification of the prior plain-error standard was made at a party’s prompting, we do not view this as a sua sponte change to the law. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed) (defining “sua sponte” as “[w]ithout prompting or suggestion; on [the court’s] own motion”). 18 structural error automatically satisfies the third prong of the plain-error standard, a forfeited structural error is very likely to also satisfy the fourth prong of the plain-error test. Recognizing a formal rebuttable presumption creates a better framework for future courts applying the plain-error standard to forfeited structural errors. Just as defendants face difficulty in proving prejudice from structural errors, they also face difficulty in identifying specific facts on the record showing that the forfeited structural error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. The formal rebuttable presumption in cases of forfeited structural error will shift the burden to the prosecutor to demonstrate that the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. The prosecutor is better positioned to marshal record facts supporting the overall fairness of the trial proceedings. For example, in the context of courtroom closures, a prosecutor may successfully rebut the presumption when the trial court failed to sufficiently articulate the basis for the closure under Waller, but sufficient justification for the specific closure was present elsewhere in the record. A prosecutor may also successfully rebut such a presumption when an unjustified closure was limited and the courtroom remained open during most of the critical stages of trial. In those hypothetical situations, specific facts could affirmatively demonstrate that, despite the error, the overall fairness, integrity, and reputation of the trial court proceedings were preserved. 16 16 The ability to rebut this presumption is consistent with our historical differentiation between preserved and unpreserved errors. “This Court disfavors consideration of unpreserved claims of error,” and the mere occurrence of error is insufficient for relief if the defendant failed to object to the error in the trial court. Carines, 460 Mich at 761-762. Enforcing a higher standard to achieve relief for unpreserved error encourages defendants to identify error at trial, as the trial court is “ordinarily in the best position to determine the relevant facts and adjudicate the dispute,” and resolution at the trial court level prohibits 19 As applied in the present case, the denial of defendant’s public-trial right—as a structural error—presumptively establishes that the error had a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial, and the prosecutor has not rebutted this presumption. The prosecutor, with whom the Court of Appeals agreed, argues that this prong is not satisfied because the closure “reduced the perception that the gallery was provictim and against defendant, and it made less glaring the fact that no one was there who supported defendant.” Davis, 331 Mich App at 716. But the public-trial right does not serve only defendant’s interest in the presence of community support. The existence of public observers, no matter their affiliation, helps to ensure a fair trial, to ensure that attorneys and judges do their jobs responsibly, to encourage witnesses to come forward, and to discourage perjury. Vaughn, 491 Mich at 667. Further, this focus on the supposed absence of harm to defendant himself fails to consider the harm rendered to the integrity and public reputation of the trial. While we agree with the prosecutor that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions and that the jurors in this case were instructed to base their decisions on the evidence, that alone is not enough to rebut the presumption where the defendant from using the alleged error as an appellate parachute. Puckett v United States, 556 US 129, 134; 129 S Ct 1423; 173 L Ed 2d 266 (2009). Here, although the fundamental and unquantifiable harm rendered by forfeited structural errors is sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the plain-error standard and presumptively satisfy the fourth, the prosecutor’s ability to rebut the latter presumption means that the defendant is not guaranteed relief for a forfeited structural error. Accordingly, defendants remain encouraged to object to structural errors at the trial court, where the trial court may contemporaneously cure the error, or, upon appeal, the defendant will receive automatic relief. Those defendants who forfeit their argument continue to face a higher threshold for relief on appeal than those who preserved their argument. Under these circumstances, we find unlikely the concurrence’s concern that litigants will strategically choose not to object to potential structural error in order to harbor that error as an appellate parachute. 20 the vast majority of the critical parts of this trial occurred behind closed doors. 17 Therefore, we hold that the prosecutor has failed to rebut the presumption that the deprivation of defendant’s public-trial right had a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. Having satisfied the plain-error standard, defendant is entitled to relief.