Opinion ID: 3210008
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Partial Closure

Text: [¶23] When a party is seeking a partial closure of the courtroom only, or when the trial court determines that a limited restriction is necessary, we will apply a less stringent standard “provided the essential purposes of the ‘public trial’ guarantee are served and the constitutional rights of defendants are adequately 14 protected.”9 United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24, 33 (1st Cir. 1998). Thus, when the closure or restriction of the public is only partial, “a ‘substantial reason,’ rather than an ‘overriding interest,’ may warrant a closure.” Id. (citations omitted). [¶24] The ejection of a single spectator from a courtroom, or the brief exclusion of a small group of disruptive spectators, is, at most, a partial closure. Cf. United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 569 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the requirement that court visitors show photo identification constituted “at most a partial closure”); Massachusetts v. Ray, 4 N.E.3d 221, 229-31 (Mass. 2014) (holding that requiring attendees to provide identification and sign in with the court officers before entering the courtroom did not constitute a partial closure). To assure a fair trial, the trial court is authorized to restrict the presence of a nonparty spectator when a substantial reason is presented, such as the potential for the distraction of a witness, the attorneys, or the jury. See United States v. Laureano-Pérez, 797 F.3d 45, 76-78 (1st Cir. 2015).10 In such circumstances, 9 Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet opined on the standard to be used in evaluating a partial closure of the courtroom, most federal circuit courts have applied a less stringent standard to partial closures than the standard for complete closures announced by the United States Supreme Court in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984). See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 797 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24, 33 (1st Cir. 1998); United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94, 99 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Farmer, 32 F.3d 369, 371-72 (8th Cir. 1994); Woods v. Kuhlmann, 977 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 1992); Nieto v. Sullivan, 879 F.2d 743, 753 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sherlock, 865 F.2d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 1989); Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531, 533 (11th Cir. 1984). 10 See also Osborne, 68 F.3d at 96-99 (upholding a trial court’s partial closure of the courtroom during a trial on the defendants’ kidnapping charges while the twelve-year-old victim testified); Woods, 977 F.2d at 76-78 (upholding a trial court’s decision to exclude a defendant’s family members during an 15 which may arise without warning and will require prompt judicial action to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the court’s announcement of the necessity for the limited exclusion is sufficient to create a record for review. See id. at 78.