Longus v. State
416 Md. 433
Md.2010Background
- Longus was tried in Washington County Circuit Court for robbery and second-degree assault; handgun conviction addressed separately.
- Key prosecution witness Lindsay Wise was central; the State sought to exclude certain spectators during Wise’s testimony due to alleged intimidation.
- Trial court removed Longus’s father Glenn Goode, and two other spectators, Millie Myers and Don-Don Norris, from Wise’s testimony, citing extraordinary cause.
- Defense urged openness and argued there was no demonstrated threat justifying exclusion; trial court granted the State’s motion.
- Court of Special Appeals upheld the partial closure; this Court granted certiorari to decide whether Waller’s overriding-interest standard or the “substantial reason” test applies to partial courtroom closures.
- Court holds that Waller’s overriding-interest standard applies to both total and partial closures; the State failed to prove an overriding interest tailored to the facts; Wise’s post-closure testimony should not cure the error; remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred applying a non-Waller standard to partial closure. | Longus argues Waller overriding-interest standard should govern. | State contends substantial-reason test suffices for partial closures. | Overriding-interest standard applies to partial closures. |
| Whether excluding Myers and Norris during Wise’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment. | Longus maintains no adequate overriding interest shown for excluding them. | State asserts threats/communications justify exclusion. | Exclusion of Myers and Norris not supported by proper facts; closure improper. |
| Whether Wise’s post-closure testimony can validate the closure. | Post-hoc testimony cannot justify prior exclusion. | Closure could be vindicated by later testimony. | Post-closure testimony may not salvage the closure; improper. |
| Whether trial court adequately applied the Waller factors. | Record lacked proper case-specific findings supporting overriding interest. | Court relied on proffer; sufficient to support closure. | Findings inadequate; error in closure. |
| Remedy for public-trial violation. | Violation requires new trial. | Remedy not addressed beyond reversal. | Remand for new trial to conform with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (overriding-interest test for closures; four-factor framework)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (openness value; adjournments must be justified by openness interests)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (public trial protects fairness; openness principle)
- Carter v. State, 356 Md. 207 (Md. 1999) (must have on-record, case-specific findings; openness favored)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2010) (voir dire closures require articulable overriding interest)
- Tinsley v. United States, 868 A.2d 867 (D.C. 2005) (partial closures governed by Waller; interview voir dire when necessary)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 456 Mass. 94, 921 N.E.2d 906 (Mass. 2010) (partial closures; balancing standards same as full closures)
- Woods v. Kuhlmann, 977 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1992) (partial closure cases; open-trial standard protection)