954 N.W.2d 552
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Donald Wayne Davis, Jr. was tried before a jury in Genesee Circuit Court; during the afternoon of the second day the trial court orally ordered the courtroom closed to the public "for the remainder of the trial," except for the victim’s mother.
- No affirmative waiver by defendant or defense counsel was made; there was also no contemporaneous objection, so appellate review is under the plain-error framework.
- The courtroom closure occurred after the venire was dismissed and after the jury had been seated; during the closure the jury heard testimony from 14 witnesses (13 for the prosecution), counsel argued, instructions were given, and the jury returned a verdict.
- The trial court made no on-the-record factual findings that the victim’s mother intended to interfere with proceedings or that narrower measures were inadequate, and it did not explore reasonable alternatives as required by controlling precedent.
- The concurrence/dissent (Swartzle, P.J.) agrees the closure was plain structural error under Carines/Vaughn but concludes the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the proceedings and therefore warrants reversal and remand for a new public trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Swartzle, P.J. concurrence/dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order closing the courtroom to the public violated the Sixth Amendment and Michigan Constitution public-trial right | Any closure was justified by trial needs and any error was forfeited/harmless and did not require reversal | The closure (all except victim’s mother) violated the public-trial right and was not waived | The closure violated the public-trial right; it was plain structural error |
| Whether the defendant waived the public-trial right | Silence or lack of contemporaneous objection constitutes forfeiture and supports review as plain error | No affirmative waiver occurred; defendant did not consent or approve the closure | No waiver—defendant forfeited the right (no objection), so plain-error review applies |
| Whether the trial court complied with procedural requirements (Vaughn) before closing the courtroom | The court’s action was within discretion and sufficient under the circumstances | The court failed to make required factual findings, was overbroad, and did not consider alternatives | Trial court did not comply with Vaughn: no factual findings, closure broader than necessary, alternatives not considered |
| Whether the public-trial violation requires reversal/remand for new trial | Any error did not seriously affect fairness/integrity and is not reversible because defendant’s guilt is not negated | Structural error: defendant must show the closure deprived him of Sixth Amendment protections regardless of guilt | The error seriously affected fairness, integrity, and public reputation; would reverse convictions and remand for a new public trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Micalizzi, 223 Mich 580 (Mich. 1925) (public trial is mandatory and constitutional right protects against trials "behind locked doors")
- People v. Vaughn, 491 Mich 642 (Mich. 2012) (requirements for closing courtroom; public-trial violation is a structural error subject to plain-error review)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error standard and four-prong test for forfeited error)
- United States v. Gupta, 650 F.3d 863 (2d Cir. 2011) (framework for assessing public-trial violations—focus on whether court’s actions deprived defendant of Sixth Amendment protections)
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (public-trial values: ensuring fairness, accountability, and discouraging perjury)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (historical purposes of the public-trial right: public scrutiny to guard against injustice)