Jordan v. Lamanna
33 F.4th 144
2d Cir.2022Background
- Gigi Jordan was tried in New York state court for administering a fatal dose of medication to her 8-year-old son; she asserted an affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and was convicted of first-degree manslaughter after a nine‑week trial.
- About one month into the trial, the court closed the courtroom for ~15 minutes at the State's request to address a website titled “The Inadmissible Truth” and an email Jordan had sent spreading the site; defense counsel repeatedly objected.
- The site and the email (which Jordan had emailed to ~100 contacts, including media) were marked as exhibits; the court initially sealed the minutes and exhibits but unsealed them later that same day.
- Jordan moved postverdict claiming her Sixth Amendment public‑trial right was violated; the trial court denied relief and the Appellate Division affirmed, treating the brief closure as the equivalent of a sidebar/chambers conference not covered by the public‑trial right.
- The New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court denied further review. Jordan then sought federal habeas relief; the district court granted the writ, but the Second Circuit reversed and instructed the district court to deny the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment public‑trial right applied to the 15‑minute Closed Proceeding | Jordan: The public‑trial right extends beyond the record to proceedings that affect trial fairness; the Closed Proceeding was public‑type and should have been open | State: The brief, ancillary conference was like a sidebar/chambers conference and did not implicate the public‑trial right | Held: No clearly established Supreme Court law requires treating this kind of ancillary 15‑minute proceeding as within the Sixth Amendment right; reasonable jurists could disagree, so habeas relief barred under AEDPA |
| Whether Waller's four‑part test (overriding interest, narrowness, alternatives, findings) had to be followed and, if not, whether reversal/new trial is required | Jordan: The court closed without following Waller; that procedural error requires vacatur/remedy | State: Even if Waller applies, Supreme Court precedent does not clearly establish that any procedural lapse mandates vacatur; remedy is discretionary | Held: Although Waller articulates steps for closures, the Supreme Court has not clearly established that failure automatically requires a new trial; AEDPA prevents imposing such an extension on the state court |
| Whether the Appellate Division unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under AEDPA | Jordan: Appellate Division erred by finding no Sixth Amendment violation | State: Appellate Division’s conclusion is reasonable given precedent distinctions; AEDPA requires deference | Held: The Appellate Division’s ruling was within the realm of fair‑minded disagreement and thus not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Proper remedy for any closure error | Jordan: New trial is required | State: Remedy should fit the violation; not necessarily a new trial and Waller does not mandate vacatur | Held: Court declined to adopt a rule that Waller errors always require a new trial and reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief (remanding to deny the petition) |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (extended public‑trial right to suppression hearings and set four‑part test for closures)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Sixth Amendment public‑trial right applies to jury voir dire)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (recognition of public/press right of access to criminal trials)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (First Amendment right of access to voir dire; tests of tradition and functional importance)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (public‑trial guarantee incorporated against the states)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (definition of AEDPA inquiry: contrary or unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires deference; relief only where state court decision is objectively unreasonable)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014) (limits on requiring state courts to extend Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA)