Opinion ID: 2598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waller

Text: Waller provides the ne plus ultra of the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial: a four-part closure test. To close a proceeding: (1) the party seeking closure 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 court must consider reasonable alternatives to closure; and (4) the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210. We do not believe  nor does the State truly argue  that the Waller test should be limited solely to the closure of suppression hearings. Waller expressly relied upon and incorporated decisions addressing closures in a variety of proceedings. See id. at 44-48, 104 S.Ct. 2210 (citing Oliver, 333 U.S. at 259, 68 S.Ct. 499 (one-man grand jury proceeding), Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 602, 102 S.Ct. 2613 (victim trial testimony), and Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. at 510, 104 S.Ct. 819 (juror voir dire)). Thus, the Waller test is rightly regarded as a rule of general applicability in the courtroom closure context. Cf. Musladin, 127 S.Ct. at 654 ( Williams and Flynn speak only to state-sponsored conduct and do not provide a rule of general applicability that must be considered in spectator conduct cases). Waller does not demand a higher showing before excluding a defendant's friends and family. Nor does Waller 's quotation of Oliver and its jeremiad against European judicial secrecy magically transmogrify the entire history of the common law right to a public trial into constitutional precedent. See generally Oliver, 333 U.S. at 266-71, 68 S.Ct. 499 (discoursing at length on Jeremy Bentham and the various injustices of the Spanish Inquisition, English Court of Star Chamber, and the French monarchy's abuse of the lettre de cachet ). AEDPA is concerned only with Waller 's holding: that a courtroom closure must pass its four-part test.