Daniel P. Roberts v. State of Maine
103 A.3d 1031
Me.2014Background
- Daniel P. Roberts was convicted of murder in 2007; he later sought post-conviction relief alleging Sixth Amendment violations (right to public trial) and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- At voir dire, the court conducted individual questioning of 49 prospective jurors in chambers (no public present); defense counsel had requested private individual questioning and was present with co-counsel and one jury consultant; Roberts did not object at trial.
- The courthouse posted a restriction barring apparel with fraternal colors/logos (to avoid Hell’s Angels associations); only one spectator was asked about a Harley-Davidson shirt and was allowed in after turning it inside out; defense counsel consented.
- During trial, spectators’ disruptive behavior led the court to admonish attendees and then to restrict entry while testimony was underway; late-arriving supporters sometimes had to wait outside until breaks.
- On the day of the verdict the jury returned at 4:54 p.m.; some Roberts supporters later claimed they were locked out before the announcement, but the post-conviction court found the doors were locked at the usual 5:00 p.m. time and that no exclusion occurred.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether voir dire in chambers, courthouse apparel screening, restricted entry during testimony, or locking doors before verdict violated Roberts’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closure of individual voir dire (in chambers) | Roberts: private voir dire closed the trial and violated Sixth Amendment; counsel ineffective for agreeing | State: counsel requested/private voir dire; tactical waiver; no ineffective assistance | Held: No relief. Counsel’s agreement was a reasonable tactical decision; performance not ineffective; claim procedurally defaulted on PCR |
| Courthouse apparel screening (prohibiting certain logos) | Roberts: screening was a partial closure and required explicit findings | State: no public excluded; policy reasonable and narrowly tailored to protect fair trial | Held: No closure. Screening was a reasonable, limited condition to protect fairness and did not violate Sixth Amendment |
| Restricting entry during testimony (late arrivals excluded until breaks) | Roberts: exclusion during testimony was a partial closure without findings | State: measures were reasonable, temporary, targeted to prevent disruption; not a constitutional closure | Held: No closure. Temporary restrictions to prevent distraction were permissible and did not violate the public-trial right |
| Doors locked before verdict (public excluded from verdict reading) | Roberts: courthouse locked before jury announced verdict, denying public access | State: doors were locked at usual time after verdict; no evidence they were locked earlier | Held: No closure. Post-conviction court’s factual finding that doors locked after announcement is supported; no Sixth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-factor test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (presumption of openness and requirement to consider alternatives to closure)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Sixth Amendment right to public trial extends to voir dire)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (trial judges may impose reasonable limitations on access in interest of fair administration)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural-default and analysis of courtroom closure errors)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (total closure as structural error; jury selection critical stage)
- State v. Roberts, 951 A.2d 803 (Me. 2008) (direct-appeal decision addressing evidentiary and instruction issues)