Commonwealth v. Alebord
467 Mass. 106
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant Alebord convicted of second-degree murder (jury trial, Feb. 2004); during jury empanelment the courtroom was cleared to spectators for ~80 minutes, excluding the defendant’s family and friend.
- No contemporaneous objection was made at trial; defendant did not raise the issue on direct appeal or in his first motion for new trial.
- Defendant filed a second motion for a new trial (2008) alleging the empanelment closure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; after evidentiary hearings, the trial judge found either no closure or that any closure was de minimis or waived.
- The Appeals Court vacated and remanded, concluding a defendant’s right to a public trial may be waived only by a personal and knowing waiver by the defendant or counsel; remand led to renewed factual findings.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the empanelment closure was not de minimis, but affirmed denial of the second motion because counsel’s acquiescence in the longstanding local practice waived the right and did not constitute ineffective assistance under prevailing professional norms.
Issues
| Issue | Alebord's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 80-minute exclusion of the public during jury empanelment violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial | Empanelment closure violated the Sixth Amendment and was structural error requiring automatic reversal | If any error, it was waived by failure to object; alternatively de minimis and harmless | Closure was a constitutional violation (not de minimis), but waiver applied because defense counsel acquiesced to the local practice |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel | Failure to object was prejudicial and below competent standards, so waiver should be excused | Counsel was experienced, acted within prevailing norms, and made reasonable tactical choices; not ineffective | Counsel’s conduct did not fall below objective Saferian/Strickland standards given the prevailing local practice, so no ineffective assistance |
| Whether waiver of the right to a public trial requires defendant’s personal, knowing waiver | Defendant argued waiver must be personal and knowing (per Appeals Court reading) | Commonwealth argued counsel can waive by acquiescence or failure to object | Counsel may waive the right by failing to object; personal, express waiver by defendant is not required when counsel knowingly acquiesces |
| Retroactivity / applicability of Presley and related precedent | Argues Presley and Cohen announce established rule applicable here | Commonwealth suggested these announced a prospective rule | Presley and related precedent announced a rule dictated by precedent and applies retroactively to this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes standards for courtroom closure and recognizes public-trial right)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (right to public trial extends to jury selection)
- Marcus v. United States, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (violation of public-trial right is structural error)
- Commonwealth v. Lavoie, 464 Mass. 83 (2013) (trial counsel can waive public-trial right by action or inaction)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (2010) (public-trial right applies to voir dire)
- Commonwealth v. Alebord, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (2011) (Appeals Court: argued personal knowing waiver required)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (standard for ineffective-assistance review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (objective standard for evaluating counsel performance)