Cameron, Vanessa
PD-1427-13
Tex. App.—WacoMar 25, 2015Background
- Defendant Vanessa Cameron appealed after spectators were excluded from voir dire in a Bexar County criminal trial; defense counsel repeatedly objected on the record.
- Trial court and record show limited courtroom space: chairs were used for the venire and the court proposed alternatives (placing observers behind counsel, in front of bench, or opening rear doors to a hallway).
- The court offered to open back doors so the public could stand or sit in the hallway; the State objected, citing local fire-code and security concerns.
- The trial court found it had offered alternatives and did not formally rule that the public was excluded; defense disputes these Findings of Fact as incomplete and lacking specificity.
- Appellant contends the closure of voir dire was not justified by on-the-record, fact-specific findings and argues the error is structural under the Sixth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courtroom closure during voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Cameron: spectators were excluded; court failed to make on-the-record, specific findings of an overriding interest or narrow alternatives as required | State/Trial Court: physical constraints, security and fire-code concerns justified limiting access; court offered alternatives (hallway) | Court of Criminal Appeals (per appellant brief): argues closure is structural error requiring reversal; trial court Findings inadequate under Presley/Lilly/Steadman |
| Whether off-the-record suggestions satisfy Presley/Steadman/Lilly requirement for on-the-record findings | Cameron: off-record suggestions are insufficient; findings must be fact-specific on the record | State: (implied) practical communications suffice; court offered solutions | Held (appellant position): off-record suggestions do not meet controlling precedent; record must show articulated overriding interest |
| Whether the error (if any) is structural or requires harm showing | Cameron: violation of public trial is structural error requiring no harm showing | State: (implied) may argue harmless-error or waiver by defense | Held (appellant relies on precedent): public-trial violations are structural errors (no harm showing needed) |
| Whether trial court’s Findings of Fact accurately reflect record (including State’s fire-code objection) | Cameron: Findings omit State’s on-record fire-code objection and the court’s recognition of fire-code limits; record contradicts Findings | State: Findings assert court offered hallway alternative; court found defense more inclined to seek rulings than accept solutions | Held (appellant position): Findings are incomplete and insufficiently specific to justify closure under precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (trial court must make on-the-record, specific findings before closing voir dire)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (closure requires articulated overriding interest and narrowly tailored findings)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (violation of public trial is structural error; findings must be on the record and specific)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reiterates requirement for specific on-the-record findings for closures)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (discusses structural error doctrine)