Barrows v. United States
15 A.3d 673
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Barrows was convicted in the DC Superior Court of disorderly and disruptive conduct on Capitol grounds (DC Code § 10-503.16(b)(4)) for shouting during a Petraeus hearing on Sept. 11, 2007.
- The defense was conducted with Barrows proceeding pro se, aided by two attorney-advisors.
- The critical issue on appeal concerns the trial court’s jury-voir-dire process, including courtroom closure, juror-strike decisions, and questions about political views and 9/11 injuries.
- The court closed the courtroom during voir dire; spectators were removed and later allowed back for trial.
- The government sought to question jurors about political views and about injuries related to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks; Barrows challenged these procedures as improper and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-trial closure during voir dire violated Sixth Amendment | Barrows contends closure violated public-trial rights | Barrows asserts closure harmed impartiality and fairness | Plain error recognized; but not reversible given case-specific factors |
| Whether jurors 600 and 720 were valid for-cause strikes | Barrows argues strikes biased the jury | Government contends bias shown supported strikes; no plain error | No reversible error; bias shown supported removal for cause |
| Sua sponte probing of antiwar political views was required | Cordero requires careful voir dire on political attitudes | Court adequately allowed supplementation; no failure to probe | Not plain error; defense did not request specific questions; court allowed supplemental inquiry |
| Allowance of 9/11 injury question to jurors | Question linked appellant's protest to terrorism improperly | Question relevant to exposing bias given 9/11 context | Not reversible error; question allowed to expose potential bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (Supreme Court, 2010) ( Sixth Amendment public-trial right extends to voir dire; summary disposition possible)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (Supreme Court, 1984) (public-trial right applies to pretrial proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court, 1984) (First Amendment public-access principles apply to voir dire)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1999) (structural errors under plain-error framework; limited categories)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court, 1993) (plain-error fourth prong requires case-specific analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (Supreme Court, 2009) (case-specific approach to plain-error review; cautions against per se rules)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2004) (distinguishes structural errors and plain-error analysis)
- Cordero v. United States, 456 A.2d 837 (D.C. 1983) (significant likelihood of prejudice requires careful voir dire; political attitudes relevant)
- Doret v. United States, 765 A.2d 47 (D.C. 2000) (voir dire must uncover bias; breadth of examination discretion)