Steve Nolan v. Christine Money
534 F. App'x 373
6th Cir.2013Background
- Petitioner Steve Nolan was charged with attempted kidnapping in Ohio and moved to suppress the identification evidence.
- A voir dire of the minor victim and the officers who performed the line-up occurred; part of the hearing was conducted in the judge's chambers to protect the witness from intimidation.
- Petitioner did not file a motion to suppress the identification after the chamber proceedings.
- Petitioner challenged on habeas review that the chamber examination violated his Sixth Amendment right to be present and to a public trial.
- The district court and this court affirmed, holding the state court's ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did chamber examination of the witness violate the public-trial right? | Nolan argues the public-trial right was violated by closing part of the voir dire. | The state court held no violation since closure did not affect trial fairness and the trial proceeded with witness cross-examination in Nolan's presence. | No unreasonable application; public-trial right not violated. |
| Is the remedy under Waller appropriate or futile here? | A new, public voir dire would remedy the violation. | Remedy would be duplicative and futile given trial testimony and cross-examination already occurred in Nolan's presence. | Remedy would be duplicative/futile; no reversible error under Waller. |
| Did the trial court's failure to consider alternatives to closure affect the ruling? | Naively argues Waller requires consideration of alternatives to closure. | Court accepted the closure as narrowly tailored for witness protection. | Court did not err in view of the record; remedy under Waller not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (established four-part test for courtroom closure)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (public-trial right applies to voir dire of jurors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (structural concerns about trial integrity)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (fairminded jurists could disagree on state court's decision)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application standard for AEDPA review)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (defining clearly established federal law under AEDPA)
- Landrum v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2010) (judicial interpretation of AEDPA standards)
- Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (U.S. 2011) (clarifying scope of Supreme Court holdings for AEDPA review)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (deference under AEDPA; standard for 'contrary' or 'unreasonable application')
- Dyer v. Bowlen, 465 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2006) (state-court findings reviewed under AEDPA)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (U.S. 2010) (preclusive effect of state court determinations under AEDPA)