Commonwealth v. Robinson, 102 N.E.3d 357

Background

In 2002 defendant was convicted of first‑degree (felony) murder, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm; he moved for a new trial about 13 years later alleging the courtroom had been closed during jury empanelment.
Trial counsel never lodged a contemporaneous objection to the courtroom closure; the trial judge was not aware of the closure and did not order it.
At the motion hearing the judge credited defense counsel's testimony that neither counsel nor defendant knew the courtroom had been closed and that, had counsel known, he would have sought admission of excluded family members.
The motion judge treated the claim as preserved structural error and granted a new trial.
The Commonwealth appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court held the claim was procedurally waived because no timely objection was made at trial and reversed the grant of a new trial, remanding for consideration under the lesser "substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice" standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to object at trial to a courtroom closure forfeits the right to automatic reversal for preserved structural error	Commonwealth: failure to object at trial procedurally waives the presumption of prejudice and the more favorable standard	Defendant: claim was not waived because neither he nor counsel knew the courtroom was closed and he raised the claim in his first motion for new trial while direct appeal pending	Held: Procedural waiver/forfeiture applies; without a contemporaneous objection the presumption of prejudice for structural error is forfeited and claim is reviewed for a "substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice."
Whether lack of counsel or defendant awareness of the closure avoids procedural waiver	Defendant: unawareness means no opportunity to object, so claim preserved	Commonwealth: unawareness does not save the claim; timely objection is required to preserve it	Held: Unawareness does not prevent procedural waiver; the rule requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve the claim.
Standard of review for an unpreserved courtroom closure claim raised in a postconviction motion	Defendant: treated as preserved structural error when raised in first motion for new trial	Commonwealth: unpreserved claims must be assessed under prejudice/miscarriage standards	Held: Unpreserved courtroom closure claims are reviewed to determine whether the error created a "substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice."
Whether raising the claim in the first posttrial motion while direct appeal is pending preserves the claim	Defendant: timing of first motion (while appeal pending) preserves the claim	Commonwealth: preservation depends on contemporaneous trial objection, not later posture	Held: Preservation depends on timely trial objection, not on whether the claim was first raised in an early posttrial motion or on direct appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes public‑trial/Waller factors for closing a courtroom)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (distinguishes preserved from unpreserved public‑trial errors and explains benefits of contemporaneous objection)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public‑trial right extends to voir dire)
Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (2010) (preservation by contemporaneous objection when closure discovered during empanelment)
Commonwealth v. Wall, 469 Mass. 652 (2014) (failure to object at trial causes procedural waiver even if counsel was unaware)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 471 Mass. 262 (2015) (same: unawareness of closure does not prevent waiver)
Commonwealth v. LaChance, 469 Mass. 854 (2014) (presumed‑prejudice rule for preserved structural errors and waiver principles)
Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 478 Mass. 189 (2017) (preservation inquiry focuses on whether closure was objected to at trial)