Purvis v. State
288 Ga. 865
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Purvis indicted in Berrien County for child molestation involving a family member; trial held Oct. 3, 2006 in the county jail courtroom after jury selection at the county courthouse; the record does not explain why the trial moved to the jail; Purvis’s brother, who sought to attend, was denied entry; the State’s witnesses testified about general public access to the jail courtroom but did not rebut the brother’s account; the State concedes the brother was kept out of the courtroom during the trial.
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial, applicable to the states, and Georgia constitutional provisions similarly require openness of criminal proceedings.
- Purvis argued that the jail courtroom setting and the jail’s exclusion of his brother violated his public-trial rights; the State argued no constitutional violation given general policies allowing public access and no deliberate closure.
- The trial court’s decision to hold the trial in the jail courtroom transferred control of public access to jail authorities, effectively closing the courtroom to the public; no consent of the accused to hold the trial in an alternate facility was obtained.
- The Court of Appeals’ reliance on OCGA § 15-6-18(a) was misplaced because OCGA § 15-6-18(c)(1) governs trials in alternate facilities for counties under population thresholds; the statute requires the accused’s consent for a criminal jury trial in an alternate facility.
- The majority remanded for a new and public trial, reversing the Court of Appeals and overruling Drake v. State to the extent inconsistent with OCGA § 15-6-18(c)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail-trial closure violated public-trial rights | Purvis: brother barred; public trial rights violated | State: open-access policy; no explicit closure for the entire trial | Yes; closure violated public-trial rights and requires remand for new trial |
| Whether OCGA § 15-6-18(c)(1) governs and invalidates the Court of Appeals’ reasoning | Purvis: consent not obtained under statute | State: Drake application valid | Yes; statute requires accused’s consent for trials in alternate facilities, reversing the Court of Appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 292 S.E.2d 815 (1982) (Ga. 1982) (open court principle and public access to hearings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (S. Ct. 2010) (trial courts must accommodate public attendance; closure must be justified)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499 (1948) (U.S. 1948) (right to public attendance includes family and friends)
- Perry v. United States, 479 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (D.C. Cir. 2007) (exclusion of the defendant’s child during a single witness’s testimony did not implicate public trial)
- Gomez v. State, 305 Ga.App. 204, 699 S.E.2d 395 (2010) (Ga. App. 2010) (public-access issues at voir dire; burdens of proof on allegations of closed proceedings)