In re the Personal Restraint of Morris, 288 P.3d 1140

Morris filed a timely personal restraint petition alleging a public trial right violation due to in-chambers voir dire and ineffective appellate counsel for not raising it on direct review.
The case is analytically indistinguishable from In re Personal Restraint of Orange; the court reaffirmed Orange and held relief on collateral review if appellate counsel failed to raise a clearly prejudicial public-trial issue.
Morris also challenged trial-evidentiary decisions about a proposed defense expert (Daly) and claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting Daly’s testimony.
The trial court limited Daly’s testimony on certain topics and excluded others based on prior cases; Morris’s defense did not call Daly and ultimately relied on other evidence.
The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial on the public-trial issue, while sustaining the evidentiary and trial-counsel challenges as not independently reversible.
The decision also discusses possible use of a Bone-Club analysis and notes that Daly’s testimony issues did not amount to a complete miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did in-chambers voir dire violate the public-trial right?	Morris	State	Appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue constitutes ineffectiveness; prejudice presumed on direct review; remand for new trial.
Did the trial court err in excluding Daly’s expert testimony on police standard of care and suggestibility?	Morris	State	Trial court committed an abuse of discretion on the standard-of-care and suggestibility rulings, but no complete miscarriage of justice; no collateral relief for these evidentiary errors.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Daly’s videotaped interview and for not calling Daly?	Morris	State	No ineffective assistance; strategic or tactical reasons supported counsel’s decisions; no prejudice shown.
Do these errors cumulatively warrant reversal?	Morris	State	No reversible cumulative error given the defense’s ability to present relevant theory and no substantial impact on outcome.

State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) ( Bone-Club factors for closure analysis before public trial closure)
In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (2004) (public-trial right; ineffectiveness of appellate counsel; remand for new trial)
State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (bone-club/public-trial analysis guiding collateral review)
State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29 (2012) (public-trial issues in collateral review; Bone-Club framework)
State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222 (2009) (presumed prejudice on direct review; collateral standards differ)
In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321 (1992) (collateral review prejudice standards; higher standard under collateral review)
State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 (2005) (public-trial rights; jury selection openness)