People v. Evans
69 N.E.3d 322
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Darryl Evans was tried for first-degree murder; during voir dire the court summoned 45 prospective jurors.
- Evans’s step-grandmother (Ms. Peterson) attended but the trial court ordered her to leave the courtroom before voir dire, citing limited seating and a concern about possible juror contamination.
- Defense counsel objected and proposed segregating Ms. Peterson from the venire; the court declined and excluded her for the day.
- Ms. Peterson missed the entirety of jury selection, including individual questioning, challenges for cause, and peremptory strikes.
- The jury convicted Evans and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial; Evans was sentenced to 100 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding a public spectator from voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial | State relied on courtroom space limitations and juror-contamination concerns to justify exclusion | Evans argued exclusion violated his right to a public trial; counsel proposed less restrictive alternatives (segregation) | Court held exclusion violated the right to a public trial and was structural error requiring reversal |
| Whether preventing juror contamination was an overriding interest | State argued contamination risk justified closure | Defense pointed to absence of any specific threat and counsel’s instruction to Ms. Peterson not to speak | Court found no specific threat; generic risk insufficient to justify closure |
| Whether courtroom size justified excluding the public | State argued limited seating with 45 venire made segregation impracticable | Defense argued logistical alternatives existed to accommodate a spectator | Court held size/convenience is not an overriding interest and alternatives should have been considered |
| Whether the closure was broader than necessary and whether alternatives were considered | State contended exclusion was reasonable under circumstances | Defense argued the court failed to consider reasonable alternatives and made no specific findings of harm | Court held exclusion was broader than necessary, alternatives (smaller venire groups, seating accommodations, admonitions) were available, and required factual findings were absent |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public-trial right extends to voir dire and courts must consider alternatives before closure)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (public-trial requirement protects accused and ensures appearance of justice)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public access to criminal trials promotes confidence in judicial process)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010) (structural errors require automatic reversal)
- People v. Willis, 274 Ill. App. 3d 551 (1995) (discusses jury-contamination justification and necessity of specific threat)
- People v. Taylor, 244 Ill. App. 3d 460 (1993) (absence of evidence of attempted juror influence defeats closure justification)
- Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (space/convenience not sufficient; courts must consider reasonable alternatives)
- People v. Webb, 267 Ill. App. 3d 954 (1994) (de minimis exclusions may not violate public-trial right)