People v. Evans
69 N.E.3d 322
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Darryl Evans was tried for first-degree murder; before voir dire the trial court removed Evans’s step‑grandmother (Ms. Peterson) from the courtroom and barred her from attending jury selection.
- Court initially said removal was to manage gallery space (45 potential jurors, three rows of seats) and avoid contamination; attorney had told Ms. Peterson not to speak to venire.
- Defense objected and requested segregation of Ms. Peterson from the venire; court rejected alternatives and excused her for the day.
- Ms. Peterson missed the entirety of voir dire, including juror questioning, peremptory strikes, and a challenge for cause.
- Jury convicted Evans and sentenced him to 100 years; on appeal Evans argued the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The appellate court reversed on structural‑error grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding a single public spectator from voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment public‑trial right | State argued removal was justified by preventing juror contamination and by limited courtroom seating | Evans argued exclusion was unnecessary, alternatives (segregation, smaller venire groups) existed, and exclusion denied public‑trial right | Court held exclusion violated the right to a public trial and was structural error requiring reversal |
| Whether risk of juror contamination justified closure | State claimed contamination risk (proximity in small gallery) justified exclusion | Defense showed no specific threat; counsel had warned Ms. Peterson not to speak | Court held no specific threat shown; generic risk insufficient to overcome public‑trial right |
| Whether courtroom space justified removal | State relied on logistics: 45 venire members and only three rows of seats | Defense argued logistical solutions were available and space alone is not an overriding interest | Court held cramped space is not an overriding interest absent consideration of reasonable alternatives |
| Whether court considered alternatives and made adequate findings | State contended the court managed logistics and acted reasonably | Defense noted court rejected segregation and made no findings of likely contamination | Court held trial judge failed to consider reasonable alternatives and did not make required findings; closure was broader than necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public‑trial right extends to voir dire)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (four‑part test for closing proceedings)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (structural‑error doctrine and automatic reversal)
- Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.) (logistical space concerns do not justify excluding public absent specific threat)
- People v. Willis, 274 Ill. App. 3d 551 (court must consider alternatives and specific threats to justify exclusion)
- People v. Taylor, 244 Ill. App. 3d 460 (absence of evidence of improper communication defeats contamination justification)
- People v. Webb, 267 Ill. App. 3d 954 (brief, trivial exclusions may be harmless when de minimis)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (public‑trial principle protects fairness and appearance of justice)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (public access to criminal proceedings promotes appearance of justice)