Opinion ID: 1734294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Exclude the Victim's Family

Text: Next, Beasley contends that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel's request to invoke the rule of sequestration as to the victim's daughter and son, who were key witnesses in the case. There are two bases upon which a defendant may object to the trial court's decision not to apply the rule of sequestration to a witness who is the victim's next of kin. First, one could argue that the witness has changed key testimony to conform to the evidence presented. [12] As stated in Gore v. State, 599 So.2d 978, 986 (Fla.1992) (citations omitted): The rule of witness sequestration is designed to help ensure a fair trial by avoiding the coloring of a witness's testimony by that which he has heard from other witnesses who have preceded him on the stand. However, a defendant does not have an absolute right to exclude witnesses from the courtroom. The trial judge is endowed with a sound judicial discretion to decide whether particular prospective witnesses should be excluded from the sequestration rule. Of course, should the witness' presence cause some prejudice to the accused, the witness should not be allowed to remain in the courtroom. Where the rule has been invoked, a hearing should be conducted to determine whether a witness' exclusion from the rule will result in prejudice to the accused. In Gore, the appellant claimed that the trial court erred in excusing the victim's stepmother from the rule of witness sequestration solely because she was a relative of the victim. In analyzing Gore's claim, this Court observed that the Florida Constitution grants to the next of kin of homicide victims the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused. Art. I, § 16(b), Fla. Const. The Court noted, however, that this provision does not provide an automatic exception to the rule of sequestration. While in general relatives of homicide victims have the right to be present at trial, this right must yield to the defendant's right to a fair trial. 599 So.2d at 985-86. In Gore, the Court found that the courtroom presence of the stepmother (who testified only regarding jewelry which the victim commonly wore) did not prejudice the defendant. Therefore, it found no abuse of discretion in allowing this nonmaterial witness to be excluded from the rule. Id. Here, the trial court heard argument of counsel before deciding whether the sequestration rule would be applied to the victim's next of kin. Key to her decision was the fact that the witnesses' testimony had been memorialized in prior depositions. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel's request to apply the rule of sequestration to the victim's next of kin. A second area of concern may be the prejudice potentially caused by emotional reactions of the victim's family members. In Burns v. State, 609 So.2d 600, 605(Fla.1992), Burns claimed that he was deprived of a fair trial because of emotional displays by the victim's wife. There, the Court determined that the record did not reveal any prejudicial exhibition of emotion entitling Burns to a new trial. Here, similarly, although Beasley contends that, [d]uring the course of the trial, counsel repeatedly brought to the court's attention disruptions caused by family members, the record reflects that the trial court maintained vigilance so that the defendant would not be prejudiced by any emotional displays. Twice, the court cautioned the audience to keep its comments and emotions in check, and directed counsel to advise family members accordingly. At the outset, the court indicated to the victim's adult children that they could be held in contempt for breaches of proper courtroom etiquette. During closing argument, the court carefully observed the family members and the jury to be sure that the jury was not distracted by any emotional reactions. Prior to the medical examiner's discussion of Mrs. Monfort's extensive injuries, the court provided an opportunity for members of the audience including family membersto excuse themselves from the courtroom. On the two occasions when the victim's daughter needed to compose herself, a break was taken to allow her to do so. Under these facts, the trial court does not appear to have abused its discretion in allowing the victim's family members to remain in the courtroom, subject to the safeguards which it imposed.