United States v. David Rivera
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12802
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rivera pled guilty to transporting 214.4 grams of methamphetamine under a plea agreement with a 31 guideline range and a limited appellate waiver.
- Indicted as part of a large Mongols gang case; count 53 charged Rivera and his brother with possession with intent to distribute 214.4 g meth.
- District court planned to seal filings and the courtroom; Rivera sought presence of family members at sentencing, including his seven-year-old son.
- Court initially closed August 24 hearing over Rivera’s family attendance; defense requested sidebar discussions but the hearing proceeded with closed proceedings.
- August 27 sentencing resumed with only the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, investigator, and Rivera; no family present and sentence of 97 months imposed.
- Rivera appeals on Sixth Amendment public-trial grounds, arguing the closure violated his rights and seeking remand for resentencing with his family present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sixth Amendment public-trial right attaches to sentencing | Rivera | Rivera | Yes; attaches to sentencing proceedings |
| Whether the closure of the August 27 hearing was trivial | Closure violated values of public trial | Closure was minor due to brief duration | Not trivial; violated Sixth Amendment |
| Whether Rivera forfeited his public-trial rights | No forfeiture due to prior assertion | Argues forfeiture under Levine/waiver logic | Not forfeited; defense preserved challenge |
| Whether the closure violated Rivera's public-trial rights under Waller/ Sherlock framework | Closure not narrowly tailored; serves no substantial interest | Court had interest in preventing manipulation | Violation under either total or partial-closure framework; not narrowly tailored |
| What remedy is appropriate | Remand for new, public sentencing with family attendance | Remand unnecessary or reversible error limited | Remanded for new sentencing; reassignment to preserve appearance of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (right to be present; public trial principles apply to sentencing)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (framework for evaluating closures; need substantial, tailored interests)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment public-trial scope and public access principles)
- CBS, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 765 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1985) (public access to criminal proceedings applies to post-trial matters)
- United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2003) (closure analysis for sentencing proceedings; values served by public trial)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960) (forfeiture of public-trial claims absent contemporaneous objection)