Court Opinion

ID: 9499324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:44:55.307407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:25.712569
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would grant habeas relief in this case because I believe that the action of the trial court in closing Mr. Garcia’s trial to the public ran contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). It is true, as the court notes, that the present case is not factually identical to Waller, but our case falls within its rule because it is sufficiently like it in every material respect. The rule of Waller requires the trial court to hold a hearing and make specific findings with respect to why certain identified interests allow the closing of a court room. Here, the trial court failed to do that: It took no testimony from anyone, much less the reluctant witness; and the allegations of counsel, even if credited, were much too vague to support a conclusion that interests sufficient to trump a right to the traditional public procedure were at risk. I would therefore hold that the trial court violated Waller and that Mr. Garcia is entitled to relief.
In denying Mr. Garcia’s petition, I believe that the court reads Waller too narrowly and greatly circumscribes the right to a public trial that the Sixth Amendment rather explicitly confers on criminal defen*758dants. I therefore respectfully dissent from the judgment.