State of Maine v. Kenneth Frisbee
140 A.3d 1230
| Me. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Frisbee was tried on multiple sexual-misconduct charges; jury convicted him on three counts and he appealed.
- During voir dire and trial a recurring spectator with a history of threats and stalking (including threats against Frisbee’s attorney and juror 116) was present in the courtroom and behaved disruptively.
- The court moved the spectator, warned marshals to remove him if he returned, and ultimately excluded the spectator after security screening when he reappeared and approached jurors.
- Juror 116 reported being “very distracted” when the spectator sat near her but stated she could be impartial once he was removed; the court individually voir dired the jurors and found only juror 116 had been distracted.
- Frisbee moved for a mistrial after the discovery of a threatening note in the spectator’s notebook and argued juror distraction denied him a fair trial; the trial court denied the mistrial and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror distraction by a third-party spectator required a mistrial | Spectator distracted jurors (juror 116) so trial could not be fair; mistrial required | Court took prompt corrective measures, jurors (except juror 116 briefly) said they could be impartial, so mistrial unnecessary | No abuse of discretion; denial of mistrial affirmed |
| Whether excluding the spectator violated public-trial rights | Exclusion restricts public access and must meet strict standards | Exclusion was limited, narrowly tailored, and necessary to protect fair trial and counsel performance | Partial exclusion permissible; court balanced rights and acted within authority |
| Standard for courtroom partial closure/exclusion | N/A (contextual) | Partial restrictions need a substantial reason and less stringent standard than full closure | Court may exclude a single disruptive spectator when narrowly tailored to prevent distraction |
| Adequacy of court’s remedial measures (recess, voir dire, security screening) | N/A (contextual) | Measures cured any distraction and were reasonable alternatives to mistrial | Measures sufficient; trial could proceed fairly |
Key Cases Cited
- Seabury-Peterson v. Jhamb, 15 A.3d 746 (Me. 2011) (standard of review for mistrial denial)
- State v. Bridges, 854 A.2d 855 (Me. 2004) (mistrial relief limited to prosecutorial bad faith or exceptionally prejudicial circumstances)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (requirements for fully closing courtroom and narrow tailoring)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public and press rights to observe criminal trials)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (right to effective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1998) (less stringent standard for partial courtroom restrictions)
- United States v. Laureano-Pérez, 797 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (upholding exclusion of disruptive nonparty spectator)
- Walls v. Konteh, 490 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2007) (juror focus and mistrial considerations)
- State v. Krieger, 803 A.2d 1026 (Me. 2002) (brief juror distraction does not necessarily mandate mistrial)