Bucci v. United States
662 F.3d 18
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Bucci and Jordan were jointly tried and convicted of drug-related crimes; they challenged a partial courtroom closure during jury selection under the Sixth Amendment and alleged improper delegation of Article III authority to court staff; Bucci claimed additional rights violations and prosecutorial misconduct; the district court denied § 2255 petitions; the First Circuit affirmed Bucci and vacated Jordan for further proceedings; evidentiary hearings occurred to address the closure facts.
- Jury voir dire occurred in courtroom 11 with a 65-venire; to seat jurors, the court cleared the public except for a few family members, which resulted in a partial closure during voir dire; the district court found some public presence remained and concluded no Sixth Amendment violation.
- Bucci sought collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; counsel did not object to the closure at trial, triggering procedural default; the court held the default excusable only if cause and prejudice were shown, and ultimately found no ineffective assistance that would excuse the default.
- Jordan sought § 2255 relief as well; the evidentiary hearing did not address his cause issue adequately; the court concluded Jordan is entitled to a new hearing with appointed counsel and to potentially a merits hearing if he overcomes default.
- The court also addressed Article III delegation and prosecutorial misconduct claims; it held that delegation of seating decisions to a clerk did not violate Article III and discussed Brady claims and perjury/coercion theories in Bucci’s prosecutions; it remanded Jordan for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-trial right during voir dire | Bucci argues partial closure violated the Sixth Amendment | Government contends partial closure justified by space and safety concerns | Partial closure unjustified; space existed to accommodate public attendance; the closure was not substantial justified. |
| Bucci's procedural default and cause | Bucci asserts no default because objection was preserved by other means | Bucci's counsel did not object at trial; no effective assistance proven as cause | Bucci's Sixth Amendment claim procedurally defaulted; no adequate cause shown. |
| Jordan's procedural default and waiver | Jordan asserts defense counsel unaware of closure; seeks new hearing | Government suggests no viable cause; counsel may have known | Jordan entitled to a new § 2255 hearing on cause and merits. |
| Article III delegation | Delegation of seating decisions to clerk violated Article III | Judge retained ultimate responsibility; delegation permissible for administrative tasks | Delegation did not violate Article III; judge remained responsible for closure decision. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Brady/Coercion) | Bucci alleges Brady violations and coercive tactics | Prosecution theory and evidence were properly admitted; no prejudice shown | Bucci failed to show prejudice or perjury; claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for closure; structural error when Sixth Amendment violated)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (public trial right extends to voir dire)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (2007) (partial closure analysis; public seats; public trial protections)
- DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24 (1998) (partial-closure standard; substantial interest)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (contemporaneous objection importance)
- Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (cause-and-prejudice standard for § 2255 default)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (ineffective assistance as cause for procedural default)