10 Cal. App. 5th 524
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mark Malik Scott was charged with six counts (combination of second-degree robbery and attempted robbery) based on multiple incidents in April 2015 involving juvenile and adult victims; gang and weapons enhancements were alleged.
- During jury selection a prospective juror reported contact in an elevator with appellant's father; the juror was excused. The prosecutor suggested the father’s conduct was improper and contemplated contempt/exclusion.
- On January 15, 2016, the trial court excluded appellant’s family members from the courtroom during the morning session for testimony by several witnesses (including victims E.J., L.T., and J.V.) after reports of anonymous threats to witnesses and the prosecutor’s request.
- The exclusion was limited in time (morning session) and partial (family members only); the general public remained in attendance and the court lifted the exclusion at lunchtime.
- The jury convicted Scott on all six counts and found the weapons allegations true; gang allegations resulted in a mistrial. Appellant appealed claiming denial of his right to a public trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding appellant's family during portions of trial violated the constitutional right to a public trial | People: exclusion was justified by an overriding interest—witness safety and fear from threats; limited and narrowly tailored | Scott: exclusion violated the public-trial guarantee; threats were unsubstantiated and no evidence linking family to threats; court failed required findings | Court: Exclusion violated the public-trial right because Waller prerequisites were not satisfied—insufficient evidence connecting family to threats and inadequate factual inquiry/findings |
| Standard and burden for courtroom closure | People: closure may be proper to protect witness safety where demonstrated | Scott: closure requires strict Waller compliance and specific findings; the court failed to probe or make supportive findings | Court: Recited Waller test; first prong (overriding interest supported by evidence) not met on record; closure improper |
| Remedy for public-trial violation | People: conviction should stand because closure was limited and public generally present | Scott: reversal required for constitutional violation (no prejudice showing required) | Court: Remedy must fit violation; reversed convictions tied to victims who testified while family excluded (counts 3, 5, 6) and affirmed others (counts 1, 2, 4) |
| Whether a new trial is appropriate when closure is partial and temporary | People: new trial would be disproportionate because public scrutiny largely remained | Scott: any deprivation of public-trial right requires reversal without prejudice showing | Court: New trial not required for all counts; partial, temporary closure warranted limited reversal only for affected counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (recognizes right to public trial and attendance by friends/family)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (establishes four-part test required to justify courtroom closure)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (emphasizes importance of public trials and attendance by family/friends)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (discusses societal interest in public trials)
- People v. Woodward, 4 Cal.4th 376 (applies Waller framework in California)
- People v. Esquibel, 166 Cal.App.4th 539 (requires full evaluation and record when excluding nondisruptive spectators)
- People v. Baldwin, 142 Cal.App.4th 1416 (discusses presumption of openness and closure standards)
- Alvarado v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.4th 1121 (addresses witness intimidation importance)
- Davis v. Reynolds, 890 F.2d 1105 (explains no prejudice showing required for denial of public-trial right)
- Brown v. Kuhlmann, 142 F.3d 529 (remedy for closure should fit degree of violation)