Opinion ID: 1852669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The applicability of Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984).

Text: Article I, § 6, Ala. Const.1901, guarantees that in all prosecutions by indictment, [the accused has a right to] a speedy, public trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution begins: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. . . . A public trial ensures that the judge, prosecutor, and jury carry out their duties responsibly, encourages witnesses to come forward, and discourages perjury. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). In Waller, the defendants were indicted on gambling charges after court-authorized wiretaps revealed a large illegal lottery operation. The defendants moved to suppress the recordings resulting from the wiretaps. The State moved to close the suppression hearing, arguing that the unnecessary publication of the information obtained by the wiretaps would render that information inadmissible as evidence. The trial court agreed and closed the suppression hearing to everyone except witnesses, court personnel, and the parties. The defendants were ultimately convicted, and the conviction was affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Waller, supra . In holding that closing the suppression hearing was unjustified and violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, the United States Supreme Court stated: [T]he Court has made clear that the right to an open trial may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the defendant's right to a fair trial or the government's interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information. Such circumstances will be rare, however, and the balance of interests must be struck with special care. Waller, 467 U.S. at 45, 104 S.Ct. 2210. The Waller Court set forth the following test for the proper closure of a courtroom: [1] [T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [2] the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, [3] the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [4] it must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210. In Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d 1294 (Ala. 1997), the defendant was indicted on several counts of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse. At the opening of the testimony, the trial court announced that upon motion of the State, it was going to close the courtroom during the testimony of the minor child. Defense counsel objected to the closure. The trial court overruled the objection, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeals. On petition for a writ of certiorari, this Court discussed the relevant federal and state authorities on the issue of closure of the courtroom and the defendant's right to a public trial; it specifically adopted the test set forth in Waller for determining when a courtroom can be closed without violating the defendant's right to a public trial. Ex parte Judd, supra . This Court also discussed a distinction recognized in the cited authorities between a total closure of the courtroom and a partial closure. This Court stated: In United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 (5th Cir.1995), the Fifth Circuit addressed Waller by setting out the four-part Waller test quoted above and then distinguishing Waller in the following manner: `There is a significant difference between Waller and the instant case, however. In Waller, the Supreme Court addressed a total closure of a suppression hearing, from which all members of the public were excluded. In the present case, the district court ordered only a partial closure of the proceedings, allowing all but one of the existing spectators to remain during the victim's testimony. `Prior to the Waller decision, this circuit [had] addressed the constitutionality of a partial closure in Aaron v. Capps, [507 F.2d 685 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 878, 96 S.Ct. 153, 46 L.Ed.2d 112 (1975)]. In Aaron, this court held that, when considering a partial closure, a trial court should look to the particular circumstances of the case to see if the defendant will still receive the safeguards of the public trial guarantee. This court reasoned that the partial closing of court proceedings does not raise the same constitutional concerns as a total closure, because an audience remains to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. `Although this circuit has not had the opportunity to reexamine the constitutionality of a partial closing since the Waller decision, five other circuits have addressed the issue. The Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all found that Waller's stringent standard does not apply to partial closures, and have adopted a less demanding test requiring the party seeking the partial closure to show only a substantial reason for the closure. As in this circuit's Aaron decision, these courts have all based their decisions on a determination that partial closures do not implicate the same fairness and secrecy concerns as total closures.' 68 F.3d at 98-99 (emphasis original) (footnotes omitted). See also United States v. Farmer, 32 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542 (10th Cir.1991), affirmed on return to remand, 963 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.1989); Douglas v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1983), vacated and remanded, 468 U.S. 1206, 104 S.Ct. 3575, 82 L.Ed.2d 874, panel opinion reinstated, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir.1984); Geise v. United States, 262 F.2d 151 (9th Cir.1958). Thus, the Federal courts have recognized the public interest in protecting young victims of crime, particularly young victims of sexual offenses, who are required to testify against the person accused of assaulting them. This interest provides the `substantial reason' called for in Osborne and the cases cited therein for a partial closure of a trial during the testimony of the minor victim. A `partial closure' usually means that the general public is excluded but that family and friends of the defendant are allowed to remain unless a specific reason for excluding them exists and, usually, that members of the press are allowed to remain. Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d at 1295-96. This Court ultimately concluded in Ex parte Judd that the defendant had failed to properly preserve for the record the proceedings on the motion to close the courtroom, the considerations that led to the closure of the courtroom, who was cleared from the courtroom, or whether the courtroom remained closed after the victim's testimony. Ex parte Judd, 694 So.2d at 1297. This Court held that because the defendant had failed to include the relevant facts and proceedings in the record, it could not consider whether his constitutional rights had been violated. Ex parte Judd, supra . Thereafter, the defendant petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the relief, concluding that the doctrine of procedural default precluded review of his right-to-a-public-trial claim. The defendant appealed the denial of his petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308 (11th. Cir.2001) (discussing the procedural history of the Judd case). In Judd v. Haley , the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that a violation of one's right to a public trial is a structural error that is a `defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.' Judd, 250 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). Structural errors are not subject to a harmless-error analysis. Judd, 250 F.3d at 1315. Therefore, once a petitioner demonstrates a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, he need not show that the violation prejudiced him in any way. The mere demonstration that his right to a public trial was violated entitles a petitioner to relief. 250 F.3d at 1315. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals also discussed the distinction between a total closure of the courtroom and a partial closure and the applicable tests for each: [W]e have recognized a distinction between total closures of proceedings, as in Waller, and situations where the courtroom is only partially closed to spectators. See Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531, 532 (11th Cir.1984). When access to the courtroom is retained by some spectators (such as representatives of the press or the defendant's family members), we have found that the impact of the closure is not as great, and not as deserving of such a rigorous level of constitutional scrutiny. See id. at 533; Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 1975). Both partial and total closures burden the defendant's constitutional rights, and before either is undertaken, a court must `hold a hearing and articulate specific findings.' See Douglas, 739 F.2d at 532. However, in the event of a partial closure, a court need merely find a `substantial' reason for the partial closure, and need not satisfy the elements of the more rigorous Waller test. See id. at 533; United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1155 (11th Cir.1997). We have relatively little precedent on the right to a public trial generally, and have not specifically addressed the question of how to analyze the total clearing of a courtroom during a portion of a criminal trial. However, the precedent that we do have defines `partial closures' as situations in which the public retains some (though not complete) access to a particular proceeding. See Douglas, 739 F.2d at 532 ('The most important distinguishing factor is that Waller involved a total closure[,] . . . the press and the public having been specifically excluded, whereas Douglas entailed only a partial closure, as the press and family members of the defendant, witness, and decedent were all allowed to remain'). Nowhere does our precedent suggest that the total closure of a courtroom for a temporary period can be considered a partial closure, and analyzed as such. Furthermore, our prior cases have articulated the values that the Constitution's public trial guarantee seeks to protect, which include permitting the public to see that a defendant is dealt with fairly, ensuring that trial participants perform their duties conscientiously, and discouraging perjury. See id. at 531; Brazel, 102 F.3d at 1155. These values are only moderately burdened when the courtroom is partially closed to the public, as certain spectators remain and are able to subject the proceedings to some degree of public scrutiny. However, a total closure of the courtroom, even for a temporary period, eliminates for a time the valuable role the presence of spectators can have on the performance of witnesses and court officials, and can create a public perception that the defendant is not being treated justly. Given these facts, we think that the only conclusion that can fairly be drawn from our precedent is that a total closure of a criminal trial during the presentation of evidence even for a temporary period, such as during the testimony of a particular witness, must be analyzed as a `total closure,' and subjected to the four-pronged test established in Waller. Notably, our sister circuits have also applied the stringent Waller test to circumstances in which the courtroom was completely cleared during the testimony of particular witnesses. See English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998); Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2000). Judd, 250 F.3d at 1315-16 (footnote omitted). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals went on to conclude that this Court had an adequate record before it to properly evaluate the defendant's claim that he was denied his right to a public trial. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that a fair reading of the record indicated that the trial court had completely cleared the courtroom during the witness's testimony; thus, the trial court was obligated to apply the Waller test. The Eleventh Circuit further held that this Court's treatment of the defendant's federal claims was manifestly unfair and, therefore, inadequate for the purposes of the procedural-default doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit applied the Waller test and concluded that the trial court failed to satisfy the fourth prong of that test, which requires the trial court to make adequate findings on the record to support its decision to close the courtroom. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit held that the defendant was entitled to habeas relief on his claim that his right to a public trial was violated. Judd, supra. [3] Based on the authorities discussed above, we hold that before a trial court can order a total closure of the courtroom, even on a temporary basis, the four-prong test set forth in Waller must be satisfied: [1] [T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, [2] the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, [3] the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and [4] it must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210. However, in those situations where the trial court has ordered only a partial closure of the courtroom, the party seeking the closure need only advance a substantial reason for the closure. Judd v. Haley, supra . In finding a substantial reason for the partial closure, as opposed to the more stringent overriding interest, the trial court still must satisfy the three remaining requirements of the Waller test. A partial closure usually entails the exclusion of the general public from the courtroom proceedings while allowing the defendant's family, friends, and members of the press to remain, unless a specific reason exists for excluding the latter. Judd v. Haley, supra ; Douglas, supra. We now apply these principles to the facts presented by this case. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the closure of the courtroom here amounted to a partial closure because, it reasoned, the trial court permitted Easterwood's mother to remain in the courtroom during G.W.B's testimony. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the Waller test was not applicable. We disagree. A partial closure usually contemplates that the defendant's family, friends, and members of the press will remain in the courtroom. The record indicates that most, if not all, of the spectators in the courtroom were family and friends of Easterwood. If Easterwood's mother was the only person allowed to remain in the courtroom, it is doubtful that the constitutional considerations of the public-trial guaranteepromoting a fair trial, discouraging perjury, and ensuring that the prosecutor, judge, and jury act responsiblycould be adequately protected. Thus, we conclude that there was a de facto total closure of the courtroom in this case, which invokes the Waller test. The trial court granted the State's motion to clear the courtroom because G.W.B., a 27-year-old convicted felon, had expressed a reluctance or hesitancy to testify in open court. G.W.B. stated that he was reluctant to testify because he was embarrassed by the nature of the testimony and because he felt outnumbered by the presence of Easterwood's people and the lack of his own. We also note that at one point during the colloquy with the trial court, G.W.B. announced that he was ready to testify. Additionally, in response to a question from the trial court asking whether there was anything that it could do to make G.W.B. more comfortable, G.W.B. responded No, ma'am. You're fine. I mean, it's all right. Based on the above, we cannot say that, under Waller, an overriding interest was advanced that would justify the total closure of the courtroom in this case. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SEE, LYONS, WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur. COBB, C.J., and PARKER, J., recuse themselves.