United States v. Deangelo Anderson
881 F.3d 568
7th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Deangelo Anderson was indicted on bank-robbery and related firearms/drug charges; acquitted of robbery counts but convicted of being a felon in possession, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; sentenced to 96 months (36 concurrent + 60 consecutive).
- Trial occurred April 4–5, 2016; some testimony and portions of closing/rebuttal occurred after the courthouse doors were locked at 5:00 p.m. (courtroom doors remained open and some security officers allowed limited after-hours access).
- Anderson filed a post-trial motion arguing his Sixth Amendment public-trial right was violated because proceedings continued after the courthouse was locked; no contemporaneous objection was made at trial.
- The district court denied the motion; on appeal, the government argued waiver while the panel applied plain error review under Rule 52(b).
- The Seventh Circuit held there was no plain (clear and obvious) Sixth Amendment violation because any post-5:00 p.m. exclusion was minimal/trivial (limited duration and scope), no evidence spectators were excluded, and the values underlying the public-trial right were not meaningfully implicated.
- Separately, because the district court referenced precedent (Roberson/Ikegwuonu) later abrogated by Dean, the court ordered a limited remand to allow the district court to state whether it would resentence in light of Dean.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuation of proceedings after courthouse locked denied Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Anderson: late proceedings (witnesses, closings, jury interaction) after 5:00 p.m. effectively closed access and violated public-trial right | Government/District: courthouse locking was a security measure; courtroom remained accessible to those inside; no one was shown to be excluded; no contemporaneous objection | No plain error; the post-5:00 p.m. proceedings were a trivial/limited partial closure and did not plainly violate the Sixth Amendment |
| Standard of review for unpreserved public-trial claim | Anderson: structural error warrants automatic reversal (raised in post-trial motion) | Government: unpreserved error reviewed for plain error under Rule 52(b) | Plain error review applies to unpreserved public-trial claims (defendant must show plain, clear error) |
| Whether structural-error prong (substantial rights) is automatically met for public-trial violations | Anderson: structural nature means prong satisfied | Government: plain error framework applies; prong must be shown (court need not decide automatic application) | Court assumed prong could be met but resolved failure on first two prongs (no clear/obvious error) |
| Sentencing: whether district court may consider mandatory consecutive §924(c) term when setting other sentences post-Dean | Anderson: Dean permits consideration of mandatory §924(c) when imposing sentences for predicate offenses; requests resentencing | Government: district court relied on Seventh Circuit precedent pre-Dean (Roberson/Ikegwuonu) | Limited remand ordered so district court can state whether it would impose the same sentence knowing it may consider the mandatory term under Dean |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Briley, 361 F.3d 431 (7th Cir.) (public-trial violation where large portion of prosecution's case occurred after courthouse closed)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (structural-error designation; preserved/unpreserved-error principles)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (plain-error framework requirements)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (contemporaneous-objection rule prevents 'sandbagging')
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (plain error applies to unpreserved errors, including structural errors)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (public-trial values and factors for closures)
- Braun v. Powell, 227 F.3d 908 (7th Cir.) (triviality standard for public-trial exclusions)
- Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.) (security or safety may justify closure)
- United States v. Candelario-Santana, 834 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (deliberate after-hours maneuver effecting complete closure)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (sentencing courts may consider mandatory minimum §924(c) term when imposing other sentences)
- United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir.) (pre-Dean precedent restricting consideration of mandatory consecutive term)
- United States v. Ikegwuonu, 826 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.) (reaffirming Roberson)