Court Opinion

ID: 9636828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:44:35.762367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:44.742107
License: Public Domain

WILBUR, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The opinion seeks to distinguish the case at bar from the decisions of this court in Reagan v. United States, 9 Cir., 202 F. 488, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 583, and Callahan v. United States, 9 Cir., 240 F. 683, dealing with the right to a public trial secured to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The trial court relied upon these cases to sustain the order he made on his own motion excluding part of the public from the trial. The appellant, in his brief, seeks to differentiate the cases from the case at bar but in argument admitted that if we followed these previous decisions we would have to rule that there is no error in the order of exclusion made by the court. I do not agree that the fact that each of those two cases dealt with a trial for the commission of rape on a girl 14 years of age (under the age of consent) while the present rape was committed upon a young woman 19 years of age, differentiates the cases. It is true that there is a difference in that respect but it does not distinguish the constitutional question of the right to a public trial here involved. The decision in Reagan v. United States, supra, was written by an experienced judge, and concurred in by his associates who both had long judicial experience, and the court deliberately re-j ected the line of cases which denied to the trial court discretion in excluding a portion of the public from a trial for rape such as in the case at bar. In that regard it is there said (page 490 of 202 F., 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 583) :
“We think the better doctrine is that it is not reversible error to exclude the spectators as was done by the order of the court in the case at bar, when there is no showing whatever that the defendant was prejudiced thereby, or deprived of the presence, aid, or counsel of any person whose presence might have been of advantage to him. The constitutional provision for a public trial should be construed in a reasonable sense, and in view of the object thereby intended to be subserved. The mere denial of the literal right should not be held ground for reversing a judgment, unless it can be perceived that the defendant had been deprived of some benefit or advantage thereby.”
In this connection it should be stated that before making an exclusion order the trial court asked the defendant to specify any member of the public whom he desired to have present. He was unable to name any person or persons whom he desired to have in court other than those permitted by the order but asserted the general right to have the public present at the trial.
In the case of Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 83, 85, 48 S.Ct. 468, 469, 72 L.Ed. 793, the Supreme Court took notice of the two views as to the question of the right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The court said: “Many state Constitutions contain a substantially similar guaranty and restriction. The question what constitutes a public trial the right to which is thus guaranteed and what discretion a court may exercise in limiting the audience and spectators is one upon which the cases differ. Two views are given in Reagan v. United States, 9 Cir., 202 F. 488, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 583, and Davis v. United States, 8 Cir., 247 F. 394, L.R.A.1918C, 1164, in both of which many state cases are cited. According to some of them, the order complained of here would be regarded as erroneous, while in others it would be held to be within the judicial discretion of the court.”
The court did not pass upon the proper interpretation of the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution because it was not *62applicable to trials in a state court and the writ of error in that case was directed to the state of Washington. It is now proposed, as I view it, to reverse our decisions, one of which has stood for more than 30 years, and to adopt the principle laid down by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Davis v. United States, 247 F. 394, L.R.A.1918C, 1164, cited above by the Supreme Court in Gaines v. Washington, supra.
In this connection it should be noted that since the decision in Davis v. United States, supra, Congress has enacted a statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 391, adopted in 1919, prohibiting reversal of cases for “ * * * errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Prior to that time prejudice was presumed from the mere commission of an error in a criminal case and required a reversal unless it could be seen from the entire record that no prejudice resulted. The act of Congress reversed the presumption in regard to the presumption of prejudice from an error and it is now necessary for the appellant to show that the error, if any, was prejudicial. The' statement of Judge Sanborn, in the court’s opinion in Davis v. United States, supra, that prejudice would be presumed from the denial of a constitutional right, was made prior to the act of 1919, 28 U.S.C.A. § 391, and must be read in the light of that statutory change. Unless we are to • assume that where the right affected by the error is a constitutional one the error will be presumed to be prejudicial notwithstanding the statutory change, we must look to the record to ascertain that there has been prejudice and here none was shown nor attempted to be shown. The statute makes no such distinction and I think none exists.
It may be that the ruling of the trial court in excluding portions of the public from the court room was too broad in excluding so large a portion of the public but the error, if any, is not so clear and certain ■as to justify our overruling the long standing opinion of this court which has not only been acted upon by the trial court but is the rule applied in a great many of the •states.
As I view it, the case of Reagan v. United States decided two things: First, that it is not error to limit the number of spectators who could enter the court room in a case of this kind; and, second, that if it was error it was not prejudicial. To this add the recent decisions concerning the effect of the statutory amendment, 28 U.S.C. A. § 391, supra. It was not shown by the defendant that he was prejudiced by the ruling of the trial court.
I do not agree with the proposition enunciated in the main opinion that “one of the main purposes of the admission of the public is the reasonable possibility that persons unknown to the parties or their counsel, but having knowledge of the facts, may be drawn to the trial — ” etc. I do not believe that the quotation from Hale justifies the statement that the purpose of the public trial rule is to arouse in witnesses fear or a sense of shame, or the hope that the public trial might attract witnesses who would volunteer information concerning their own wrong-doing.
I think that Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations (p. 383) has made a correct statement as to the reasons requiring public trial. This statement is quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 244, 37 P. 153, 154, 42 Am.St. Rep. 108: “While a right to the public trial contemplated by the constitution does not require of courts unreasonable and impossible things, as that all persons have an absolute right to be present and witness the court’s proceedings, regardless of the conveniences of the court, and the due and orderly conduct of the trial, yet this provision must have a fair and reasonable construction in the interest of the person accused. Judge Cooley, in his work upon Constitutional Limitations (page 383), has well declared the true rule in the following language: ‘The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused, — that the public may see that he is fairly dealt with, and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility, and to the importance of their functions; and the requirement is fairly observed if, without partiality or favoritism, a reasonable proportion of the public is suffered to attend, notwithstand^ ing that those persons whose presence could be of no service to the accused, and who would only be drawn hither by a prurient curiosity, are excluded altogether.’ ” This case was cited by our court in United States v. Reagan, supra.
The opinion of the majority proceeds upon the theory that evidence of other acts of incontinency by the complaining wit*63nesses would be admissible in evidence m favor of the defendant. The majority of tlie states hold to the contrary, although there are some that permit such testimony. The question is not involved in this appeal before us and should not be introduced into the case by a mere assumption that someone might have volunteered such testimony.