956 N.W.2d 772
N.D.2021Background
- The North Dakota Supreme Court consolidated two criminal appeals about courtroom closures and the Sixth Amendment public-trial right: State v. Moore (teacher charged with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition) and State v. Martinez (charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child).
- In Moore, the trial court excluded the public for portions of jury selection and parts of the trial (using the courtroom "as chambers"); defense counsel agreed to some closures but no on-the-record waiver was obtained.
- In Martinez, the State sought and the court granted closure for the minor victim’s testimony and for the testimony of the victim’s counselor; the court allowed one media representative to remain but the defendant did not make an express on-the-record waiver of the public-trial right.
- The ND Supreme Court reviewed whether closures implicated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right, whether pre-closure Waller findings were made, and whether a defendant can waive that right and under what standard.
- The Court held the public-trial right can be waived—but only by a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver that is reflected on the record—and required pre-closure Waller findings when proceedings are closed absent such a waiver.
- Applying those rules, the Court found the Moore closures (beginning during jury selection and recurring) and the Martinez counselor-closure were not properly supported and constituted structural/public-trial errors warranting reversal and remand for new trials; the Martinez child-victim closure was upheld on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment public-trial right may be waived and the standard for waiver | State: right may be waived; courts should enforce Waller if no valid waiver | Defendants: structural error cannot be waived/invited; closure requires automatic reversal | Held: Right can be waived, but only by a knowing, intelligent, voluntary (on-the-record) waiver; otherwise Waller applies. |
| Whether courtroom closures during jury selection in Moore complied with Waller | State: closures protected juror privacy and avoided taint | Moore: no on-the-record waiver and no pre-closure Waller findings | Held: First closure (voir dire/juror questionnaires) lacked Waller findings and no valid waiver—plain/obvious structural error; reversal/remand for new trial. |
| Whether closure for testimony of child victim in Martinez complied with Waller | State: protecting minor’s psychological well-being and identity is an overriding interest | Martinez: no express waiver and closure must be narrowly tailored/consider alternatives | Held: Court’s Waller findings for the child’s testimony were adequate; closure for victim upheld. |
| Whether closure for testimony of victim’s counselor in Martinez complied with Waller | State: counselor’s confidentiality and future ability to treat minors justify closure | Martinez: court relied on untested assertions and failed to consider alternatives; no waiver | Held: Findings insufficient—court accepted asserted interest without evidence or alternative analysis; closure was obvious error—reversal/remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (establishes four-factor test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment public-trial right extends to voir dire)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (historical and First Amendment analysis of public access to jury selection)
- State v. Morales, 932 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 2019) (ND precedent on courtroom closures and structural-error analysis)
- State v. Rogers, 919 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 2018) (Waller analysis required for pretrial competency hearing closure)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1930) (express and intelligent consent required to waive jury trial right)
- United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 1997) (waiver of public-trial right must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- Hutchins v. Garrison, 724 F.2d 1425 (4th Cir. 1983) (waiver effective only if defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right)