Court Opinion

ID: 9627123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:35:03.806799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:39.972585
License: Public Domain

Judge REED
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the judgment of conviction. I would hold that the trial court committed reversible error by its indiscriminate exclusion from the courtroom of all “non-essential personnel” during a portion of the trial.
By both the Sixth Amendment and Colo. Const, art. II, § 16, the accused has a right in criminal prosecutions to a public trial. That right was impermissibly abrogated here.
In my view, the case of Thompson v. People, 156 Colo. 416, 399 P.2d 776 (1965) is dispositive here. In Thompson, a judgment of conviction was reversed because the trial court indiscriminately excluded, *848from the entire trial, those members of the public which, as here, it considered to be “non-essential” to the trial. Specifically, Thompson quoted with approval the rule announced in United States v. Kobli, 172 F.2d 919 (3d Cir.1949) as follows:
“ ‘[T]he Sixth Amendment precludes the general indiscriminate exclusion of the public from the trial of a criminal case in a federal court over the objection of the defendant and limits the trial judge to the exclusion of those persons or classes of persons only whose particular exclusion is justified ... ’ ” (emphasis supplied)
Here, the trial court’s order was based merely upon the finding that the principal witness, who was then testifying, was under an emotional strain as a result of two factors, i.e., the underlying offense and as the object of prior threats by one spectator who may have been present in the courtroom during her testimony. The trial court reasoned that: “[I]t would be more conducive to the completion of her testimony ... that the courtroom were cleared of all nonessential personnel.” No evidence of a security problem was apparent, nor did the trial court consider removing only the one spectator as to whom grounds for exclusion may have existed. Rather, the court, without any detailed finding, as to the need therefore, issued its order of indiscriminate exclusion. While the order was limited to the balance of the witnesses’ testimony, it was unlimited in application to all but the defendants, their wives and daughter, counsel and any advisory witnesses.
I disagree that the cases cited in the majority opinion are applicable here. In each there were substantial circumstances of threatened violence to the spectators, as by a threatened escape attempt, or the presence of a large number of ■ spectators who were threatening or intimidating the witness in an atmosphere of hostility, or circumstances where a public identification of the witness would imperil the witness’ life. Thus, clearing of the courtroom of all spectators could be justified on grounds of reasonable necessity. I find that none of those circumstances were established here.
Thus, in my view, the defendant, over his objections, was denied the constitutional right to a public trial by the court’s order of general, indiscriminate exclusion of the public. Moreover, contrary to the people’s assertion, the defendant need not show that he was, in fact, prejudiced by the action of the trial court. United States v. Kobli, supra.
Like the majority, I find no merit to defendant’s other contentions of error, but because of the trial court’s infringement of defendant’s right to a public trial, I would reverse and remand for new trial.