State v. Pinno
850 N.W.2d 207
Wis.2014Background
- These consolidated cases involve Voir dire closures in Fond du Lac County that allegedly limited public access to juror selection without timely objections.
- Judge Richard J. Nuss presided over both trials; in Seaton, 91 potential jurors were seated with closures during voir dire, and in Pinno, similar closures occurred.
- Defendants Seaton and Pinno argued the public-trial right is structural and forfeited by failure to object; Seaton also challenged the judge’s recusal.
- Postconviction motions under Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (Seaton) and § 974.02 (Pinno) challenged closure and sought relief; the circuit court held voir dire was never closed.
- The court applied a waiver/forfeiture framework to determine whether the public-trial right was forfeited and whether prejudice or ineffective assistance claims could be proven.
- The lead opinion affirms the circuit court, holding that the right to a public trial extends to voir dire, but that Seaton and Pinno forfeited the right by not objecting, and that there is no automatic prejudice presumption for ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment public-trial right extends to voir dire. | Seaton/Pinno argue closure violated public-trial right. | Defendants contend closure is structural error not forfeitable. | Yes; right extends to voir dire. |
| Whether a forfeiture or waiver framework applies to public-trial closures. | Ndina/Presley imply forfeiture for timely objection. | Court should apply waiver due to importance and for efficiency. | Forfeiture applies; waiver not required. |
| Whether failure to object to closure constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel prejudice. | Prejudice presumed due to structural error. | Prejudice must be shown; rare presumption not automatic. | Prejudice not assumed; must prove prejudice absent rare circumstances. |
| Whether the circuit court’s handling of voir dire violated public-right mandates independently of the defendants’ objections. | Public-right duties require sua sponte enforcement. | Court could close for overcapacity and fairness concerns. | Court’s approach flawed; but forfeiture analysis controls outcome. |
| Whether Seaton’s recusal request was properly denied. | Judge impartiality questioned by conduct. | Judge demonstrated impartiality and complied with standards. | Recusal properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public trial extends to voir dire (contextual basis))
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (closure remedies must fit the violation (four-factor test))
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public-trial closure requires overriding interest, narrow tailoring, alternatives, and findings)
- Ndina v. State, 315 Wis.2d 653 (2009) (identifies four core values of public-trial right; aids analysis)
- State v. Soto, 343 Wis.2d 43 (2012) (forfeiture vs waiver balancing framework applied to rights)