State v. Wise
288 P.3d 1113
Wash.2012Background
- Wise was convicted of burglary and theft after jury trial conducted with voir dire partly in chambers instead of the open courtroom.
- Ten prospective jurors were privately questioned in the judge's chambers; two specifically requested private questioning, eight were brought in via a process not fully explained in the record.
- Subjects included personal health, relationships with witnesses or law enforcement, and criminal history; six jurors were excused for cause.
- The private voir dire was recorded and transcribed; there was no explicit Bone-Club analysis on the record before moving voir dire to chambers.
- Neither party objected to the chamber questioning, and there is uncertainty about whether members of the public were present in the courtroom during voir dire.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Washington Supreme Court granted review to decide if the public-trial right was violated and what remedy is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private voir dire in chambers violated the public-trial right without Bone-Club analysis | Wise | Wise/State | Yes; closure without Bone-Club analysis violated public-trial right |
| Whether the public-trial violation is structural error | Wise | Wise/State | Structural error |
| Whether there was waiver of the public-trial right | Wise | Wise | No waiver; failure to object does not waive the right |
| What remedy is appropriate for a public-trial-right violation | Wise | Wise | Remand for a new public trial; cannot simply redo voir dire |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 (1995) (five Bone-Club factors for closure on the record)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (closure must be narrowly tailored and alternatives considered)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (require consideration of all reasonable alternatives to closure)
- State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 (2009) (distinguishes cases where closure is effectively justified from those where it is not)
- State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222 (2009) (plurality addressing public-trial rights in voir dire)
- State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 (2006) (public-trial-right analyzed de novo; Bone-Club framework)
- State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 (2005) (on-record Bone-Club analysis protects public-trial right)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (structural error analysis for public-trial-type violations)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (structural errors and prejudice considerations in public-trial context)
- United States v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (defining structural error and its impact on trial framework)