Document: 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) Eric PRESLEY, Petitioner, v. GEORGIA. No. 09-5270. Supreme Court of United States. January 19, 2010. *722 PER CURIAM. After a jury trial in the Superior DeKalb County, Georgia, petitioner Presley was convicted cocaine trafficking offense. The conviction affirmed by Georgia. 285 Ga. 270, 674 S.E.2d 909 (2009). seeks certiorari, claiming his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to public violated when court excluded from voir dire prospective jurors. Georgia's affirmance contravened this Court's clear precedents. Certiorari petitioner's motion for leave proceed forma pauperis are now granted, judgment is reversed. Before selecting Presley's trial, noticed lone courtroom observer. Id., at 270-271, S.E.2d, 910. explained that jurors were about enter instructed man he not allowed had floor courthouse entirely. 271, then questioned learned uncle. Ibid. reiterated its instruction: "`Well, you still can't sit out audience with You know, most afternoon actually we're going be picking jury. And we may have couple pre-trial matters, so you're welcome come after ... complete afternoon. But, otherwise, would sixth floor, because will all hallway few moments. That applies everybody who's got case.'" counsel objected "`the exclusion courtroom,'" but explained, "`[t]here just isn't space them audience.'" When requested "`some accommodation,'" ruling further: uncle can certainly back once starts. There's no, really no need present during selection.... [W]e 42 coming up. Each those rows occupied cannot intermingle members panel. starts, opening statements other into courtroom.'" convicted, moved new based on juror dire. At hearing motion, presented evidence showing 14 could fit box remaining 28 entirely one side courtroom, leaving adequate room public. App. Pet. Cert. E-37, E-41. denied commenting it preferred seat throughout entirety "it's up individual judge decide what's comfortable." E-38. continued: "It's totally my discretion whether or I want family directly behind where they might overhear some inadvertent comment conversation." E-42 E-43. On appeal, Appeals Georgia agreed, finding "[t]here abuse here, exclude spectators stage proceedings invited return *723 afterward." 290 Ga.App. 99, 100-101, 658 773, 775 (2008). granted certiorari affirmed, two justices dissenting. "the an overriding interest ensuring potential heard inherently prejudicial remarks observers dire," rejected argument required consider alternatives closing courtroom. Ga., 272, 273, 911. It noted States [has] provide[d] guidance regarding must, sua sponte, advance own [closure]," ruled "Presley obliged any wished consider." 911, 912. offered, concluded, "there court's failure sponte alternatives." 274, This rulings respect rest upon different provisions Bill Rights, both applicable via Due Process Clause Amendment. directs, relevant part, "[i]n criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy speedy ...." In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948), made extends right, as quoted language makes explicit, accused. has further held beyond invoked under First Press-Enterprise Co. Cal., Riverside Cty., 464 501, 104 819, 78 2d 629 (1984) (Press-Enterprise I). requirement, too, binding case before brought Amendment, who trial. An initial question cases selection phase particular context answered I. 510, 819. there must open Later same Term I, considered concerning pretrial suppress certain evidence. Waller 467 39, 2210, 81 31 (1984). relied heavily actual proof suppression little doubt explicit less protective than implicit press public." U.S., 46, 2210. While Waller, issue former resolved First, Sixth, supra, 516, 819 (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("The constitutional protection access upholds today found rather provision Sixth" (footnote omitted)). instant case, arises well settled *724 summary disposition. point Waller. extent which rights coextensive question, necessary here speculate what circumstances reach protections greater other. Still, legitimate reason, least proceedings, give asserts privilege insist has. "Our uniformly recognized public-trial guarantee created benefit defendant." Gannett DePasquale, 443 368, 380, 99 2898, 61 608 (1979). There explanation barring raising unmistakably her benefit. rationale suffices resolve matter. correct assuming does public, exceptions general rule. "[T]he way interests, such defendant's fair government's inhibiting disclosure sensitive information." 45, "Such rare, however, balance interests struck special care." provided standards courts apply excluding trial: party seeking close likely prejudiced, closure broader protect interest, reasonable proceeding, make findings support closure." 48, upholding despite our contrary, absent opposing party's proffer alternatives. concluded precedents, statement proceeding" settles point. If leaves doubt, more I: "Even closure, orders denying testimony failed available sought guard. Absent consideration constitutionally dire." 511, conclusion even offered parties only precedents also premise "[t]he process itself matter importance, simply adversaries justice system." 505, asserted *725 right. instance, neither defendant nor prosecution proceedings; fact, specifically argued favor keeping transcript confidential. 503-504, Court, nonetheless, error 513, Trial obligated take every measure accommodate attendance trials. Nothing record shows accommodated Without knowing precise circumstances, possibilities include reserving public; dividing venire panel reduce congestion; instructing engage interact members. Petitioner argues that, apart failing erred did identify prejudiced merit complaint. generic risk over-hearing remarks, unsubstantiated specific threat incident, inherent whenever broad concerns sort sufficient override almost course. As dissent below, majority's reasoning permits conducted decides, whatever she prefer fill spectators." 276, 913 (opinion Sears, C.J.). conclude threats improper communications safety concrete enough warrant But cases, "be articulated along reviewing determine order properly entered." 819; see County Riverside, 478 1, 15, 106 2735, 1 (1986) overcome conclusory assertion publicity deprive [the trial]"). We rule second claim error, assuming, arguendo, dire, incumbent closure. not, needs decide. reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. Justice THOMAS, whom SCALIA joins, Today summarily disposes important questions left unanswered 25 years ago (1984), respectfully disposition these questions. *726 addresses "whether [a defendant's] right" "extends disposition." Ante, 723-724. affirmative answer relies exclusively I; bear weight answer. correctly notes answers "defendant's hearing" (not dire), 43, interprets public's attend 509, n. 8, expressly ante, acknowledgment should eliminated basis disposing summarily; reserve procedural option govern squarely directly. See, e.g., Haley, 358 644, 79 537, 3 567 (1959) (per curiam) (summarily reversing federal refused follow, mention, statute identical circumstances). nevertheless concludes Iin combination"well settl[e]" "point." 724. admits question," but, apparently extrapolating has." decides implication unstated premise: part "public trial" guarantees. STEVENS issue. See (concurring opinion) ("If advanced `trial' within meaning Amendment"). Until today, remained open; majority cites answering it. Yet hereeven though meaningfully ask us do so.[*] am unwilling without full briefing argument. Second, join reading "`alternatives closure'" quotes Press Enterprise foreclosing *727 decision 724-725. chides "conclud[ing], 724 (emphasis added). holds covered Amendment's "[P]ublic [T]rial" Clause. Accordingly, obvious "alternatives closure" opinions governs case. Even (Sixth dire) context, opinion "explicit[ly]" places burden suggesting "absent "`trial proceeding,'" ibid. (quoting 2210), definitively establish suggest consider, address absence proffer. concede easily read imply latter, violates if closes considering summarily, declare, does, "settl[e] point" "leav[ing] doubt." Besides departing dispositions, today's belittles efforts judicial colleagues struggled issues attempting interpret confidently today. Ayala Speckard, 131 F.3d 62, 70-72 (C.A.2 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 524 958, 118 2380, 141 747 (1998); F.3d, 74-75 (Walker, concurring); id., 77-80 (Parker, dissenting). surely surprise petitioner, seek reversal allegedly incorrect application well-established instead asked "resolve split authority" over opponent "those show less-intrusive alternative." 18. NOTES [*] full, state: "I. established expelled unless presence creates `substantial probability' prejudice `overriding interest.' case-specific meet test, generalized fears equally nearly suffice? "II. repeatedly proceeding bears alternatives? Must proponent necessary, available? Or exist?" i.

Category: 0