Opinion ID: 2817763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: public trial right claim

Text: We first consider Love's claim that potential jurors were challenged in a manner that violated his right to a public trial. A criminal defendant's right to a speedy public trial is found in article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution, 5 State v. Love, No. 89619-4 one of two constitutional components of our open courts doctrine. Love's standing in this case flows from article I, section 22. 2 The other component to open courts, article I, section 10, guarantees the public that [j]ustice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessarily delay. These related constitutional provisions serve complementary and interdependent functions in assuring the fairness of our judicial system, State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 259, 906 P.2d 325 (1995), and are often collectively called the public trial right. A three-step framework guides our analysis in public trial cases. First, we ask if the public trial right attaches to the proceeding at issue. Second, if the right attaches we ask if the courtroom was closed. And third, we ask if the closure was justified. State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513-14, 334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (citing State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 92, 292 PJd 715 (2012) (Madsen, C.J., concurring)). The appellant carries the burden on the first two steps; the proponent of the closure carries the third. See id. at 516-1 7. The State argues that Love's claim fails at the outset, urging us to hold that the public trial right does not attach to for cause or peremptory challenges. Typically experience and logic determine if the public trial right attaches to a particular court 2 Whether a criminal defendant also has standing to assert the public's right under article I, section 10 is an open question that we need not address in this case. See State v. Shearer, 181 Wn.2d 564,574,334 P.3d 1078 (2014); State v. Herron, 177 Wn. App. 96,318 P.3d 281 (2013), review granted, 182 Wn.2d 1001, 342 P.3d 326 (2015). 6 State v. Love, No. 89619-4 proceeding, though we can also rely on prior cases that have applied right to the proceeding at issue. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73; State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1, 12 n.4, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012) (noting it was not necessary to engage in a complete 'experience and logic test,' instead citing previous cases to support attachment). Our prior cases hold it well settled that the right to a public trial ... extends to jury selection, State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 515, 122 P.3d 150 (2005), and we reaffirm that the right attaches to jury selection, including for cause and peremptory challenges. Unlike administrative or hardship excusals, for cause and peremptory challenges can raise questions about a juror's neutrality and a party's motivation for excusing the juror that implicate the core purpose of the right, and questioning jurors in open court is critical to protect that right. Open and transparent questioning fosters public confidence in subsequent challenges to jurors and, ultimately, the composition of juries in criminal trials. We nevertheless affirm Love's conviction because he has not shown a courtroom closure in this case, failing to carry his burden under the second prong of our analysis. We have reversed convictions for two types of closures. The first, obvious type of closure occurs when the courtroom is completely and purposefully closed to spectators so that no one may enter and no one may leave. State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85, 93, 257 P.3d 624 (2011); see Brightman, 155 Wn.2d at 511-12 (public excluded from courtroom during voir dire); In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 7 State v. Love, No. 89619-4 152 Wn.2d 795, 801-02, 100 P.3d 291 (2004) (same). Love does not allege the courtroom was closed in this traditional way. The second type of closure occurs where a portion of a trial is held someplace inaccessible to spectators, usually in chambers. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d at 93; see also State v. Shearer, 181 Wn.2d 564, 568,334 P.3d 1078 (2014) (private questioning of juror in chambers); Strode, 167 Wn.2d at 227 (same of multiple jurors); State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 33, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012) (same). Love equates the for cause and peremptory challenges in his trial-which occurred in open court-to those exercised behind a closed chambers door. He argues the possibility that spectators at his trial could not hear the discussion about for cause challenges or see the struck juror sheet used for peremptory challenges rendered this portion of his trial inaccessible to the public. We find no merit in that comparison. The public trial right facilitates fair and impartial trials through public scrutiny. Shearer, 181 Wn.2d at 566. The public's presence in the courtroom reminds those involved about the importance of their roles and holds them accountable for misconduct. I d.; Strode, 167 Wn.2d at 226. Effective public oversight of the fairness of a particular trial begins with assurance of the fairness of the particular jury. Yet the public had ample opportunity to oversee the selection of Love's jury because no portion of the process was concealed from the public; no juror was 8 State v. Love, No. 89619-4 questioned in chambers. To the contrary, observers could watch the trial judge and counsel ask questions of potential jurors, listen to the answers to those questions, see counsel exercise challenges at the bench and on paper, and ultimately evaluate the empaneled jury. The transcript of the discussion about for cause challenges and the struck juror sheet showing the peremptory challenges are both publically available. The public was present for and could scrutinize the selection of Love's jury from start to finish, affording him the safeguards of the public trial right missing in cases where we found closures of jury section. See Wise, 176 Wn.2d at 7-8; Paumier, 176 Wn.2d at 33-34. We hold the procedures used at Love's trial comport with the minimum guarantees of the public trial right and find no closure here. Although Love argues for a broad rule that all peremptory challenges must be spoken aloud, written peremptory challenges are consistent with the public trial right so long as they are filed in the public record. Spoken peremptory challenges certainly increase the transparency of jury selection, but there are still legitimate methods of challenging jurors in writing, like the practice here, that do not amount to a courtroom closure because they are made in open court, on the record, and subject to public scrutiny. In summary, Love cannot show a closure occurred on these facts and his public trial claim fails. 9 State v. Love, No. 89619-4