Commonwealth v. Alebord
80 Mass. App. Ct. 432
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Alebord was convicted of second-degree murder in 2004; direct appeal and motion for new trial were consolidated and denied.
- After Owens, Presley, Cohen decisions, Alebord filed a second postconviction relief motion alleging public-trial closure during jury voir dire.
- Evidence showed seventy-two veniremembers were present; the courtroom had limited seating and a court officer prevented entry of Alebord’s friend and relatives.
- The trial judge concluded the courtroom was not constitutionally closed, citing safety policy and no record of seats becoming available; student objections were not raised at trial.
- On appeal, the court concluded the closure was constitutional error only if not justified by case-specific findings; remand was needed to consider waiver and de minimis exceptions.
- The court vacated the denial of the new trial and remanded for further proceedings, noting potential ineffective-assistance issues could be affected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury voir dire closure a constitutionally protected public trial violation? | Cohen controls; closure violated Sixth Amendment public-trial right. | Space and safety justifications render closure permissible. | Closure violated the public-trial right; remand needed to assess waiver and scope. |
| Did Alebord knowingly waive his right to a public trial? | Waiver may be implied; trial silence not sufficient. | Judge found no objection; waiver implied by silence. | Remand required to determine knowing waiver on the record. |
| Is Presley/Owens retroactively applicable under Teague to this case? | Presley/Owens should apply; newer Rule retroactive to collateral review. | Teague retroactivity governs; not retroactive unless dictated by precedent at finality. | Court discusses retroactivity but remands; Presley not deemed new rule in this context; broader Teague issue unresolved on remand. |
| Does a de minimis or trivial closure exception apply to this case? | Any closure, even de minimis, triggers public-trial protections. | Minor or de minimis closures may fall outside constitutional closure. | Remand to address applicability of de minimis exception; no ruling on its scope here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. 94 (2010) ((public-trial right; case-specific closure requirements))
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) ((jury voir dire closure; retroactivity and public-trial concerns))
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) ((Sixth Amendment public-trial extends to voir dire; per curiam ruling))
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) ((retroactivity of new constitutional rules))