Commonwealth v. White
11 N.E.3d 628
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Timothy White, a former state police sergeant, was convicted after a jury trial of cocaine trafficking, larceny over $250, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine; he moved for a new trial claiming, inter alia, a Sixth Amendment public-trial violation.
- Voir dire was conducted in two phases with counsel’s agreement: (1) general group questioning of the venire in the courtroom; (2) individual questioning in the judge’s lobby.
- The courtroom was closed to the public during the general group questioning; family members who attempted to enter were denied by a court officer following local custom when space was limited. Neither White nor his attorney knew the courtroom had been closed for that phase.
- The general questioning included statutory and case-specific questions about bias (including issues tied to the defendant’s status as a police officer) and produced affirmative responses recorded for follow-up at individual voir dire.
- The motion judge (the trial judge) granted a new trial, holding the closure during general voir dire violated White’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and that waiver did not excuse the closure; the Commonwealth appealed, conceding closure but arguing it was de minimis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courtroom closure during general voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Closure was de minimis (brief) and thus did not violate the Sixth Amendment | Exclusion of the public from general voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment and was not excused by waiver | Closure violated the Sixth Amendment; not de minimis given the substance of the excluded proceeding and intentional exclusion |
| Proper test for de minimis closures | Focus on brevity/duration of closure to determine de minimis status | Must assess how the closure affected the values of openness; substance of excluded proceeding matters more than duration | Rejected a duration-only test; courts must evaluate how the closure undermined the openness values protected by the Sixth Amendment |
| Relevance of intentionality of closure | Short duration controls even if closure was intentional | Intentional exclusion weighs against de minimis treatment | Intentional closure without justification is a significant factor weighing against de minimis finding |
| Whether individual voir dire waiver affects general voir dire closure | (Commonwealth did not press waiver argument on appeal) | Trial judge found defendant waived public-trial right for individual voir dire; defendant did not appeal that ruling | Court did not decide waiver for general voir dire here; recent cases suggest waiver would not be supported on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (Sixth Amendment public-trial guarantee applies)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public-trial right extends to voir dire)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (values served by openness and test for access)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. 94 (Massachusetts discussion of public-trial right and de minimis concept)
- Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.) (treated brief closure as de minimis in part due to inadvertence)
- United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir.) (brief, inadvertent closure treated as de minimis)
- United States v. Gupta, 699 F.3d 682 (2d Cir.) (analysis weighing how closure undermines openness values)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (public presence during voir dire promotes truthful responses and lawyer accountability)