The People v. Dwight Reid, 40 N.Y.3d 198

Defendant Dwight Reid was tried for second-degree murder and related weapons offenses; jury trial lasted eight days.
Midtrial, the People moved to close the courtroom after spectators allegedly took and posted photographs of the proceedings on Instagram with the caption “Free Dick Wolf.”
The court, after an off-the-record discussion, closed the courtroom for the final four days, citing intimidating conduct by unnamed spectators (staring, an incident that allegedly shook the court reporter) and risk of social-media–driven intimidation.
Defense counsel objected and proposed narrower measures (e.g., banning cellphones, excluding specific individuals); the court rejected them and excluded all public spectators, including the victim’s family.
The jury convicted; the Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the closure violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and ordered a new trial.

Issue	People’s Argument	Reid’s Argument	Held
Midtrial closure of the courtroom	Closure was a proper, provident exercise of discretion given intimidating spectator conduct and social-media photos; extraordinary circumstances justified full closure	Closure violated Reid’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; court failed to make required findings and did not consider or adopt less-restrictive means	Reversed — closure violated Waller; court failed to articulate specific findings, identify offenders, consider alternatives, or narrowly tailor the restriction; new trial ordered
Preservation and Hinton hearing requirement	Reid failed to preserve arguments that court should have considered alternatives or held a Hinton hearing	Reid’s objection preserved the issue; court bears obligation to consider alternatives even if parties do not; a Hinton hearing is not mandatory in every case	Reid preserved the issue; Hinton hearing not always required; court must consider alternatives and make an adequate record

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for closing proceedings: overriding interest, narrowness, alternatives, adequate findings)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (closure must include specific findings adequate for review)
People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409 (1979) (record inquiry may sometimes suffice in lieu of formal hearing)
People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71 (1972) (trial court has inherent power to close but must exercise it sparingly and only for unusual circumstances)
People v. Ming Li, 91 N.Y.2d 913 (1998) (prevention of intimidation can be an overriding interest supporting closure)
People v. Martin, 16 N.Y.3d 607 (2011) (presumption of open trials; closure only when unusual circumstances necessitate it)
People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.3d 490 (1997) (mere possibility that an interest might be compromised does not justify closure)