Daniel P. Roberts v. State of Maine, 2014 ME 125

Daniel P. Roberts was tried in 2007 for the murder of Melissa Mendoza, convicted by a jury, sentenced to 55 years, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Post-conviction review petition raised Sixth Amendment public-trial claims.
At a pre-voir dire hearing, defense counsel requested individual questioning outside the presence of other prospective jurors; the court conducted individual voir dire in chambers with defense counsel, co-counsel, and one jury-selection consultant present; Roberts did not object at trial.
The court implemented a courthouse screening rule barring apparel with certain colors/logos (aimed at preventing display of Hell’s Angels insignia); one Roberts supporter was asked to turn a T-shirt inside out and then admitted; Roberts’s counsel had consented.
During the trial the court admonished spectators for disruptive behavior and marshals began requiring late arrivals to wait until breaks to enter the courtroom; some supporters said they were kept out during testimony or could not get in for the verdict.
Post-conviction court denied relief, finding (1) trial counsel waived objection to voir dire closure as a reasonable tactical choice, (2) screening of apparel was consented-to and reasonable to protect a fair trial, (3) temporary restrictions on entry during testimony were reasonable (not a constitutionally significant closure), and (4) courthouse doors were not locked before the verdict was announced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Closure of individual voir dire in chambers	Roberts: voir dire closure violated Sixth Amendment; counsel ineffective for consenting and appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issue	State: defense counsel agreed to in-chambers questioning as a tactical choice; waived the claim	Held: No ineffective assistance; counsel’s tactical consent was reasonable; claim is procedurally defaulted on PCR
Courthouse apparel screening	Roberts: screening was at least a partial closure requiring Waller findings	State: screening did not exclude the public; it was a reasonable, narrowly tailored measure to protect a fair trial	Held: Screening was a permissible, limited condition on access, not a constitutional closure
Restricting entry during testimony	Roberts: barring late arrivals during testimony was a partial closure without findings	State: restrictions were temporary, aimed at preventing disruption and did not exclude the public	Held: Restrictions were reasonable courtroom-management measures, not a Sixth Amendment closure
Doors locked at time of verdict	Roberts: courthouse doors were locked before verdict, excluding public	State: evidence supports finding doors locked only after verdict; witnesses uncertain of arrival time	Held: Post-conviction court’s finding that doors locked after verdict is supported; no closure shown

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (four-part test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (public-trial presumption extends to jury selection; courts must consider alternatives to closure)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment right to public trial extends to voir dire)
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (trial judges may impose reasonable limitations on access in interest of fair administration)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (public-trial principles and purposes)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (public-trial value statements)
Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural default/structural-error discussion re: courtroom closure)
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (total closure during jury selection is structural error)
State v. Pullen, 266 A.2d 222 (Me. 1970) (voir dire as part of the trial)