932 N.W.2d 106
N.D.2019Background
- Defendant Bradley Joe Morales stabbed his ex-girlfriend; she later died and Morales was tried for murder after an initial attempted-murder charge was dismissed and later refiled.
- Proceedings attracted significant media attention; the trial judge issued an order restricting extrajudicial comments and expressed concern about tainting the jury.
- The district court ordered multiple closures: two pretrial hearings (Mar. 27 and Apr. 16, 2018) and several in-trial closures (May 17–24, 2018) for bench conferences, evidentiary review of graphic video, limiting-instruction discussions, juror questioning, and the defendant’s request to make a record.
- Several closures were made without the court conducting or articulating the pre-closure Waller analysis (overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives, adequate findings); in some instances Waller factors were discussed only after the public had been excluded.
- Appeals court reviewed whether the closures violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right and whether any such violation required automatic reversal (structural error) or could be reviewed for plain/obvious error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courtroom closures (pretrial and during trial) implicated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial | Court closures were justified to protect an untainted jury and fairness | Closures occurred without required pre-closure Waller findings and excluded public/unnecessarily broad | Multiple closures violated the public-trial right because Waller findings were not made pre-closure; some closures were structural error requiring reversal |
| Whether trial closures without pre-closure findings are structural error immune to harmless-error review | Closure serves fair-trial interest and was narrowly needed | Failure to make prior Waller findings is a constitutional violation (structural) | Violation of public-trial right is structural error; several closures affected substantial rights and cannot be harmlessly cured |
| Proper standard of review for various closures (preserved vs. forfeited) | For unobjected closures, review for obvious/plain error | For preserved objections, de novo review of constitutional claim | Preserved pretrial closure reviewed de novo and reversed; forfeited trial closures reviewed for obvious error and many found obvious because structural |
| Whether defendant’s request to close (invited error) bars reversal | Court and parties may close for defendant’s requested private statement | Invited-error doctrine prevents appealing errors the defendant requested | Court declined to resolve invited-error doctrine fully because other closures already required reversal; noted tension but did not rely on invited-error to affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (establishes four-factor test for courtroom closures and requirement for pre-closure findings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure and may not exclude the public routinely)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (public-trial right promotes public confidence, record availability can satisfy limited bench conferences)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest with narrowly tailored findings)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes structural errors immune to harmless-error analysis)
- State v. Klem, 438 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1989) (requires articulation of reasons and findings on the record before excluding the public)