293 P.3d 1159
Wash.2013Background
- Tarhan and three codefendants were charged by information with second degree rape by forcible compulsion and tried jointly before a single jury.
- Prospective jurors completed confidential questionnaires before voir dire to aid questioning and identify who might be questioned privately in open court.
- Questionnaires were completed and later sealed by the trial court several days after jury selection; no objection or sealing order signatures from counsel appear in the record.
- Voir dire occurred in open court; questionnaires were used as a screening tool to focus which venire members would be individually questioned.
- The Court of Appeals remanded for Bone-Club analysis to justify the sealing under public-access concerns; the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but held remand unnecessary.
- The lead opinion concludes no closure of the trial occurred, while concurring opinions discuss open-records concerns and procedural/waiver issues under RAP 2.5(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did sealing the juror questionnaires violate the defendant's public-trial right (article I, sec. 22)? | Tarhan argues the sealing created a closure affecting the defendant's right to a public trial. | Tarhan relies on Coleman and Bone-Club to claim a public-trial violation warranting reversal/remand. | No public-trial closure; conviction affirmed and remand unnecessary. |
| Did sealing the juror questionnaires violate the public-records/open-records right (article I, sec. 10) and require remand? | Tarhan seeks Bone-Club/Ishikawa analysis to justify sealing under open-records duty. | Sealing did not implicate article I, sec. 10 because questionnaires functioned as screening tools and remained open during voir dire. | No article I, sec. 10 violation; remand not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) (Bone-Club factors for public access vs. right to a public trial)
- State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222 (2009) (Public-trial and voir dire openness)
- State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 (2005) (Public-trial/open-records analysis guidance)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (2004) (Openness and records access framework)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Serko, 170 Wn.2d 581 (2010) (Constitutional analysis required before sealing records)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (Structural vs. non-structural error; open-court rights context)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960) (Failure to object can waive public-trial claim in some contexts)
- Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (Waiver consequences for not objecting to rights)
- State v. Beskurt, 159 Wn. App. 819 (2011) (Appeals court decision on public-trial/open-records interplay)