United States v. Rosario-Camacho, 790 F.3d 295

Defendants Negrón-Sostre, Rodríguez-Sostre, Pérez-Mercado, Maysonet-Soler, and Rosario-Camacho were charged in a Puerto Rico drug conspiracy case (La Quince) with six counts including conspiracy and drug distributions; the operation ran 24/7 with owners, runners, and sellers at La Quince; trial occurred January–April 2010 with a three-month jury verdict; public was excluded from voir dire allegedly due to a longstanding local practice; district court hearing found no clear evidence of a formal policy; convictions were vacated and remanded for a new trial to avoid double jeopardy concerns; the appellate court ultimately vacated the convictions due to a structural Sixth Amendment error in courtroom closure during voir dire; sufficiency of evidence was addressed in light of retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a courtroom closure during voir dire?	Defendants argue the public was excluded.	Defendants contend closure occurred in voir dire.	Yes, there was a complete courtroom closure during voir dire.
Was the closure a plain error under applicable standards?	Closure violated Sixth Amendment right to public trial.	Defendants contend any error was not plain.	The closure was plain error under the standard.
Did the closure constitute a structural error affecting trial fairness?	Closure infected the entire trial process and undermined public scrutiny.	Not necessary to treat as structural; argument minimized.	Yes, it was a structural error that seriously impaired fairness.
What is the remedy given the error?	Convictions should be vacated and retrial ordered.		Convictions vacated and case remanded for a new trial.
Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions at the first trial?	Evidence supported at least some counts.	Evidence failed for certain counts.	Evidence sufficient to support convictions on challenged counts, but retrial rendered moot for double jeopardy concerns.

United States v. Agosto-Vega, 617 F.3d 541 (1st Cir. 2010) (Sixth Amendment public-trial right extends to voir dire; courtroom closure is structural error when improper.)
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (Public-trial right extends to jury voir dire; closure considerations.)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (Closure must be justified, narrowly tailored, with adequate findings.)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Public-trial protection during criminal proceedings.)
Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2011) (Plain-error framework and application to closure issues.)
United States v. Scott, 564 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2009) (Plain-error review framework for undisclosed courtroom closures.)
Portela, 167 F.3d 687 (1st Cir. 1999) (Factors for determining single conspiracy in complex drug cases.)
Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2009) (Conspiracy sufficiency under totality of evidence; variance analysis.)
Rivera Calderón, 578 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2009) (Interdependence and overlap among conspirators evidence.)