People v. Hassen, 351 P.3d 418

Defendant Omer Hassen was tried on drug-possession and distribution charges; trial proceeded to a jury.
On the second day the prosecutor sought to close the courtroom for testimony of two undercover officers (S.P. and E.W.) to protect their identities; the court granted both requests over Hassen’s objections and evicted the public, including his family.
The court gave limiting instructions to the jury but made no specific findings, did not record consideration of alternatives, and did not apply Waller formally.
The jury acquitted on distribution but convicted Hassen of possession; Hassen appealed on Sixth Amendment public-trial grounds.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held the closure violated Waller and remanded for a new trial; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether total courtroom closure for undercover-officer testimony violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right	Closure protected an overriding interest (officer safety/identity) and was substantively consistent with Waller	Closure deprived Hassen of constitutional right because court did not satisfy Waller’s requirements	Closure violated the Sixth Amendment; reversal required and new trial ordered
Whether the closure satisfied Waller’s four-part test (overriding interest, narrowly tailored, alternatives, findings)	Even if not formally recited, the closure substantively protected the officers and was justified	Court failed to consider alternatives, was broader than necessary, and made no adequate findings	Court failed to satisfy Waller’s requirements (at least three prongs unmet)
Whether an invalid closure can be treated as “trivial” and therefore not a constitutional violation	The closure was trivial or de minimis and did not implicate the public-trial right (invoking Peterson triviality approach)	The closure was intentional, nontrivial, and impaired the public-trial protections	Closure was not trivial; Peterson’s facts distinguishable; structural error requires automatic reversal
Appropriate remedy for the violation	New trial is excessive; remedy should fit the violation	Automatic reversal is required for structural public-trial violations	Structural error; new trial required because improper closure occurred during jury trial

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (establishing four-part test for court closures)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (trial courts must consider all reasonable alternatives to closure)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 140 (erroneous deprivation of certain trial rights is structural error)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (Colorado recognition that deprivation of public-trial right is structural)
People v. Flockhart, 304 P.3d 227 (Colo. 2013) (structural-error automatic reversal principle)
Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1996) (articulating a "triviality" approach for some courtroom closures)
Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001) (structural-error framework discussion)