Document: 467 U.S. 39 104 S.Ct. 2210 81 L.Ed.2d 31 Guy WALLER, Petitioner,v.GEORGIA. Clarence COLE et al., Petitioner, v. GEORGIA. Nos. 83-321, 83-322. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 27, 1984. Decided May 21, Syllabus After court-authorized wiretaps telephones by Georgia police revealed a large lottery operation, executed search warrants at numerous locations, including petitioners' homes. Petitioners and others were then indicted for violating Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act other state gambling statutes. Prior to trial, petitioners moved suppress evidence seized during searches. The State close suppression hearing public, alleging that unnecessary "publication" information obtained under would render inadmissible as evidence, wiretap "involve" privacy interests some persons who but not on indicted. trial court agreed, finding insofar related alleged offenders be tainted could used in future prosecutions. Accordingly, over objections, ordered closed all than witnesses, personnel, parties, lawyers. lasted seven days, less 21/2 hours devoted playing tapes intercepted telephone conversations, few them mentioned or involved parties before court. case was tried jury open court, acquitted RICO convicted affirmed. Held: 1. Under Sixth Amendment, any closure objections accused must meet following tests: party seeking advance an overriding interest is likely prejudiced; no broader necessary protect interest; consider reasonable alternatives closing hearing; it make findings adequate support closure. Cf. Press-Enterprise Co. Superior California, 464 501, 819, 78 629. Pp. 44-47. 2. above tests, entire here plainly unjustified. State's proffer specific whose might infringed if what portions infringe those interests, portion consisted tapes. As result, court's broad general did purport justify hearing. And immediate 48-49. 3. remanded courts decide portions, any, new may public light conditions time A need held only new, results material suppressed first change positions parties. 49-50. 251 Ga. 124, 303 S.E.2d 437, reversed remanded. Herbert Shafer, Atlanta, Ga., petitioners. Mary Beth Westmoreland, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases require us extent which motion objection defendant consistently with Fourteenth Amendment right trial. 2 * Acting authorization, placed number phones last six months 1981. taps operation volume stocks bonds traded New York Stock Exchange. In early January 1982, law enforcement officers simultaneously homes 35 charged (Georgia RICO) Act, Ga.Code Ann. §§ 16-14-1 16-14-15 (1982 Supp.1983), commercial communicating violation 16-12-22 16-12-28 (1982). 3 separate 13 defendants, They asserted, inter alia, authorizing unsupported probable cause based overly information, conducted without supervision, resulting searches indiscriminate, "exploratory general." App. 11a. suppress. stated order validate seizure derived from have introduce "which [might] involve expectation than" defendants. Id., 6a. 4 On June empaneled excused while heard motions. prosecutor argued should because statute "[a]ny publication" warrant "necessary essential" evidence. See § 16-11-64(b)(8) (1982).1 He said published "[might] very well tainted." 13a. agreed. It found 14a. Over objection,2 5 days. do dispute conversations. conversations played included one had been named indictment; person recorded calls. remainder concerned such matters procedures obtaining executing authorizations, followed preserving tape recordings, certain allegations prosecutorial misconduct. 6 Agreeing concession 10 boxes documents "personal, no[n]crime related," Tr. Suppression Hearing 635, suppressed, id., 642; 19a. refused comparable amount material. charges statute, information. remaining indictment, transcript released public. 7 affirmed convictions. 437 (1983). open-trial issue, ruled properly balanced rights against Amendment. 126-127, S.E.2d, 441. We granted certiorari whether defendant's applies 959, 390, 334 hold does, failed give proper weight concerns. we reverse. II 8 present three questions: First, does accused's extend prior presentation jury? Second, so, violated here? Third, appropriate remedy?3 9 This has recently considered insist upon never extends beyond actual proof are not, however, relevant precedents. several recent cases, press qualified First attend criminal Globe Newspaper Norfolk County, 457 596, 102 2613, 73 248 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Virginia, 448 555, 100 2814, 65 973 (1980). also extended voir dire proceeding selected. 629 (1984). Moreover, earlier this line, Gannett DePasquale, 443 368, 99 2898, 61 608 (1979), pretrial While Court's reach question, 392, S.Ct., 2911, majority Justices concluded constitutional hearings, 397, 2914 (POWELL, J., concurring) (basing Amendment); 406, 2919 (BLACKMUN, joined BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, JJ., dissenting part) Amendment). each these made clear way fair government's inhibiting disclosure sensitive Such circumstances will rare, balance struck special care. applicable rules Press-Enterprise: 11 "The presumption openness overcome essential preserve higher values narrowly tailored serve interest. articulated along enough reviewing can determine entered." U.S., 510, 824. 12 Accord, Co., supra 606-607, 2620-2621; supra, 580-581, 2829-2830 (opinion BURGER, C.J.); Gannett, 392-393, 2911-2912 (semble); 400-401, 2916-2917 concurring); 440-446, 2936-2939 part). noted, analysis proceeded largely Nevertheless, there little doubt explicit protective implicit central aim try fairly, "[o]ur uniformly recognized public-trial guarantee created benefit defendant." 380, 2905. " ' requirement accused; see he fairly dealt unjustly condemned, presence interested spectators keep his triers keenly alive sense their responsibility importance functions. . ." Ibid. (quoting re Oliver, 333 257, 270, n. 25, 68 499, 506, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), turn quoting T Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 647 (8th ed. 1927)).4 14 addition ensuring judge carry out duties responsibly, encourages witnesses come forward discourages perjury. 24, 682; Douglas Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1532, 1541 (CA11 1983), cert. pending, 83-817, 83-995; ex rel. Bennett Rundle, 419 599, 606 (CA3 1969). 15 aims pressing wrongfully individual opinions recognized, hearings often important itself. 1, 2914, 434-436, 2933-2934 part); (BURGER, C.J., concurring). many defendants thereafter pleaded guilty pursuant plea bargain. 16 addition, resembles bench trial: sworn testify, course counsel argue positions. outcome frequently depends resolution factual matters. 434, 2933 particularly strong respect hearings. challenge attacks conduct prosecutor. Appeals Third Circuit "[s] trong pressures naturally work prosecution's propriety obtaining" 605. exposing substantial misconduct salutary effects scrutiny.5 sum, tests set its predecessors.6 B 17 Applying bar, find Press-Enterprise, prejudiced, interest, proceeding, case, about expressed concern wiretaps; statute. advanced more general, essentially identical, protecting circumstances, 511-512, 18 Here, infringed, how they them, hearing.7 hearing: directing government provide detail closure, camera necessary, parts jeopardized advanced.8 turned out, course, far extensive necessary. 7-day hearing, C 19 question remains relief remedy violation. merits ordered. Solicitor General, appearing behalf amicus curiae, suggests most directed. consistent view lower federal required prove prejudice obtain guarantee.9 agree view, think requires case. Rather, If, after same presumably windfall defendant, Goldberg States, 425 94, 111, 96 1338, 1348, 47 603 (1976); Jackson Denno, 378 394-396, 84 1774, 1790-1791, 908 (1964). 20 seems unless substantially alters presents here, significant remand closed. decision still considered. 21 judgments below reversed, further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 22 so barring publication part section warrant. At read: "Any issued hereunder preparation prosecution crime specified shall unlawful invasion Chapter, prosecution." 26-3004(k) (1977 Supp.1981) (subsequently recodified 16-11-64(b)(8)). Counsel Waller, Thompson, Eula Burke, W.B. Burke lodged petitioner Cole concurred 14a, 15a. Respondent argues precluded challenging appears merits. 441 Cole's claims identical others. Since remanded, well. procedurally barred matter law. two Fourth arguments, both disposed summarily. assert forfeiture authorizes warrantless seizures property pattern racketeering activity facially invalid 16-14-7(f) Supp.1983). established standing proceeding. admitted authority warrants, contrary. fact permit avoid our advisory. Petitioners' second "flagrant[ly] disregard[ed]" scope conducting issue into impermissible warrants. rely Heldt, 215 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 227, 668 1238, 1259 (1981) (per curiam), denied sub nom. Hubbard 456 926, 1971, 72 440 (1982), Rettig, 589 418, 423 (CA9 1978), proposition fruits search, just items seizure, suppressed. exceeded places searched. say unlawfully took away unconnected prosecution. certainly lawfully See, e.g., Andresen Maryland, 427 463, 482, 11, 2737, 2749, 49 627 Offices Known 50 Distributing 708 1371, 1376 denied, 465 1021, 1272, 79 677 (1984); Tamura, 694 591, 597 1982); Holmes, 452 249, 259 (CA7 1971). Estes Texas, 381 532, 588, 85 1628, 1662, 543 (1965) (Harlan, ("Essentially, embodies human nature, true rule, judges, lawyers, jurors perform respective functions responsibly secret proceedings"); 506 ("The knowledge every subject contemporaneous review forum effective restraint possible abuse judicial power"). To independent guarantee, 383, 2907; cf. Newspaper, 604, 2618, full force example. wholesale 150 homes, eavesdropped 800 means effectively unsupervised wiretaps. 605, 2619 (First access trials "ensure[s] [the] constitutionally protected 'discussion governmental affairs' informed one"). One reasons avoiding tainting publicity, 824—is absent when makes object rationale attenuated where, instructed discuss read accounts matter. 238-239, 240-241, 293-294. claim holding, claim. follows: "If you plan offer going relates offenders, my judgment concerned, publication." post hoc assertion cannot satisfy deficiencies record. finds record, itself too standard. 1542 1983) (citing cases), 83-995. Levine 362 610, 627, n., 80 1038, 1048, 989 (1960) (BRENNAN, dissenting) ("[T]he settled rule [is] showing reversal conviction proceedings"). Circuit. noted en banc shown "would deprive [the defendant] [public-trial] difficult envisage available injury." (1969). benefits intangible, prove, chance, Framers thought nonetheless real. Sheppard, 182 Conn. 412, 438 A.2d 125, 128 (1980) ("Because demonstration kind practical impossibility, necessarily implied"); People Jones, N.Y.2d 409, 416, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 364, 391 N.E.2d 1335, 1340 (1979) harmless error gauge great, though societal loss flows" courthouse doors).

Category: 0