242 P.3d 921
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Leyerle challenged his unlawful possession of methamphetamine conviction based on voir dire conducted partly outside the courtroom.
- Hallway voir dire was recorded; a biased juror was questioned in the hallway and later excused for cause.
- The trial court did not fully articulate Bone-Club factors on the record prior to closure.
- Presley v. Georgia requirements and Waller-derived standards apply to determine closure propriety and remedies.
- Court remands for proceedings consistent with Presley/Waller framework; conviction reversed.
- Dissent would affirm, arguing no true closure and that case should not automatically yield a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hallway voir dire violated the public-trial right | Leyerle argues closure occurred without Bone-Club analysis | State argues no formal closure and public hallway remained open | Reversal and remand due to public-trial violation |
| What remedy is appropriate for public-trial closure | Remand for new trial per Presley/Waller framework | Remedy may be case-specific; not automatically a new trial | Remand for proceedings consistent with Presley/Waller; not automatically a new trial |
| Whether defendant waived public-trial rights by assent to hallway interview | Failure to object does not waive public-right | Defense counsel assent indicated consent | Waiver not controlling; Presley/Waller governs reversal/remand |
| Whether the Hallway interview was de minimis | Any closure is significant under constitutional standards | Two-minute interview was minimal | Not de minimis; requires Bone-Club analysis and remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (requires consideration of alternatives to closure and reversal if not done)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (remedy must be appropriate to the violation; not automatic new trial)
- State v. Paumier, 230 P.3d 212 (2010) (Presley controls closure analysis; case-by-case remedy)
- State v. Brightman, 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (public-trial right is guarded but not absolute; standard de novo review)
- State v. Strode, 217 P.3d 310 (2009) (Bone-Club analysis framework for closure decisions)
- State v. Momah, 217 P.3d 321 (2009) (discusses Bone-Club/closure standards and public-trial rights)
- State v. Bone-Club, 906 P.2d 325 (1995) (five-part Bone-Club closure test)
- Orange v. Superior Court, 100 P.3d 291 (2006) (establishes public-trial openness standards)