People v. Martin, 16 N.Y.3d 607

Defendant Martin was arrested on November 19, 2006 on multiple drug and weapon charges.
During voir dire on March 4, 2008, the court ordered defendant's father to leave the courtroom and forbade any communication with jurors.
The court justified closure by seating overcrowding and preventing influence, but did not identify an overriding interest or concrete threat.
No findings or alternatives to closure were documented; the father was excluded for a substantial portion of voir dire.
Voir dire spanned about 2.5 hours in the morning with 10 jurors excused; the father later re-entered and attended the trial.
Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the third degree; the Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether closing the voir dire to defendant's father violated the open-trial right	People argues closure was necessary to ensure integrity and efficiency	Martin argues no overriding interest justifies exclusion and alternatives were ignored	Yes, closure violated the open-trial right
Whether the trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives to closure	People asserts Presley required exploring alternatives	Martin contends alternatives were unnecessary or unavailable	Yes, court failed to consider alternatives
Whether the omission of open trial constitutes reversible error per se	People urges per se reversal for open-trial violation	Martin seeks reversal without harmless-error analysis	Yes, reversal/new trial ordered

Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (public-trial right extends to voir dire; require alternatives to closure)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (necessity of concrete findings to close proceedings)
People v. Jelke, 308 N.Y. 56 (1954) (public-trial right fundamental)
People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410 (1988) (limits on closing public proceedings; duty to accommodate)
Gibbons v. Savage, 555 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (brief improper closure not significant enough may be irrelevant)
People v. Peterson, 81 N.Y.2d 824 (1993) (denial of public-trial right requires affirmative act explicitly closing)