Court Opinion

ID: 9699782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:51:35.40632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:57.529076
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
In confining their analyses to the question of whether appellant was denied his right to a public trial, the opinion of Mr. Justice Flaherty and the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Nix and Mr. Justice McDermott ignore what is clearly the crucial issue in this case, and indeed in every criminal case: whether appellant was denied his right to a fair trial. Because the sudden exclusion of the public from appellant’s trial during the testimony of the Commonwealth’s chief witness may well have served to prejudice the jury against appellant, justice requires that appellant be granted a new trial.
The record indicates that on the morning of March 8,1979, the second day of appellant’s trial, there were as many as fifty persons observing the trial, including members of a high school class and at least thirty prospective jurors not yet assigned to a trial. Before the lunch hour, and just before chief Commonwealth witness Thomas Colvin took the stand, the prosecuting attorney requested a recess, during which he informed the court that he had learned that there might be an attempt on Colvin’s life. Instead of considering less prejudicial alternatives, the court, over defense objection, ordered the courtroom cleared of all spectators except for a few members of the media. Trial was resumed immediately. With only the media representatives present, witness Colvin then testified to his own involvement in the alleged homicide as well as to the involvement of appellant. It appears that no limitations on public access were imposed at any time during the remaining three days of trial.
The abrupt exclusion of members of the public during the presentation of the Commonwealth’s most damaging testimony against appellant invited the jury to focus unduly *350upon that testimony and to speculate as to the reason for the absence of spectators. In view of the nature of witness Colvin’s testimony, the jury might well have concluded that the witness’s safety had been threatened, a conclusion which would of course reflect adversely upon appellant.
Because of the clear potential for prejudice caused by the court’s exclusion of the public during the key portion of the Commonwealth’s case, appellant must be granted a new trial.
O’BRIEN, C.J., joins this concurring opinion.