282 P.3d 101
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Slert was tried for a third time for second degree murder; this appeal challenges multiple trial rights violations.
- Central issue: in-chambers conference with counsel led to dismissal of four jurors without Slert’s presence, triggering public trial rights concerns.
- Court previously held the in-chambers event violated the public trial right and remanded for a new trial on that basis.
- Record shows juror questionnaires specific to Slert’s case were used; four jurors were excused for cause after an in-chambers discussion.
- The majority analyzes whether the in-chambers proceedings amounted to jury selection and thus to a public-trial closure requiring Bone-Club analysis.
- The court ultimately remands for a new trial on public-trial grounds but affirms evidentiary rulings if issues arise again on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the in-chambers conference/ juror dismissal violate the public trial right? | Slert argues the in-chambers meeting with counsel excused jurors for case-specific reasons without public closure analysis. | Slert's counsel allegedly participated; procedural context may render it non-voir dire and ministerial. | Yes; the closure violated the public trial right and requires remand for a new trial. |
| Did the absence of Slert at the in-chambers conference affect his right to be present at critical stages? | Slert asserts he was not present for the decision to dismiss jurors and thus was deprived of a critical-stage presence. | Counsel participated; record unclear on personal presence; presence may not be required in all such ministerial matters. | Yes; Slert’s presence was violated, contributing to reversal and remand. |
| Does Presley/Momah Paumier govern the remedy for a public-trial closure in this context? | Continued reliance on Presley/Momahah-era rules requires reversal for structural error when closure occurred without proper findings. | Remedy should be tailored to violation; Presley does not mandate automatic reversal here. | Remand for new trial; the closure is treated as reversible error requiring remedy appropriate to the violation. |
| Were the juror excusals administrative/ministerial or voir dire requiring open-court questioning? | Excusals based on questionnaire responses may be administrative; otherwise, voir dire would require in-court open proceedings. | Record shows consultation with counsel; may have been administrative with no on-record voir dire at chambers. | Record insufficient to affirm ministerial nature; reversal nonetheless upheld due to public-trial violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Irby, 170 Wn.2d 874 (Wash. 2011) (juror questionnaires and jury-selection processes can implicate public-trial rights)
- Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 (Wash. 2009) (in-chambers voir dire not automatically structural error when defendant consented)
- Paumier, 155 Wn. App. 673 (Wash. App. 2010) ( Presley overruled Momah sub silentio on remedy; public-trial closure analysis required)
- Leyerle, 158 Wn. App. 474 (Wash. App. 2010) (public trial rights and in-chambers voir dire balance concerns)
- Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222 (Wash. 2009) (plurality on in-chambers voir dire; closure considerations vary by record)
- Bowen, 157 Wn. App. 821 (Wash. App. 2010) (closure analyses depend on record specifics; harms need careful review)
- Bennett, 168 Wn. App. 197 (Wash. App. 2012) (adequate record required to determine whether public-trial rights were violated)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (remedial approach to closure remains remedy-focused, not automatic reversal)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795 (Wash. 2004) (public-trial right extends to adversary proceedings including voir dire)