United States v. Timothy Yazzie, 743 F.3d 1278

George and Yazzie, Navajo residents in Arizona, are charged in separate trials with multiple counts of aggravated sexual abuse of minors and related offenses based on acts against child relatives (George: 2007 outhouse incident; 2010 car-park incident; Yazzie: R.J. testimony).
Prior to trial, the government moved to close the courtroom during each child’s testimony to protect effective communication and minimize intimidation; George opposed closure.
The district court adopted a procedure to view videotaped interviews first and then decide per-child whether closure was needed, closing the courtroom for four child witnesses after review.
Yazzie’s closure was justified by the court after reviewing an April 2011 forensic interview showing the child’s discomfort testifying in an open courtroom; the order permitted spectators with a direct interest to be heard for possible continuation in court.
George was convicted on four counts and sentenced to four concurrent 30-year terms plus lifetime supervised release; Yazzie was convicted on three counts and sentenced to 420 months concurrent with lifetime supervised release.
The district court’s closure decisions invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3509(e) (child-witness protection) and were reviewed under the Waller v. Georgia framework for public-trial challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did courtroom closures during child-witness testimony violate the Sixth Amendment as applied to George?	George: closure prejudices trial and presumption of innocence.	George: closures were properly tailored and justified under Waller.	No Sixth Amendment violation; closures satisfied Waller factors.
Did the closure of Yazzie’s courtroom violate the Sixth Amendment as applied to his trial?	Yazzie: closure burdened rights; improper evaluation of interests.	Yazzie: court appropriately weighed interests and used narrow closure.	No Sixth Amendment violation; closure supported by findings and tailoring.
Did the closures comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3509(e) regarding protecting child witnesses?	Yazzie: court failed to follow § 3509(g)/(h) or hold a hearing.	Court correctly applied § 3509(e); no mandatory expert hearing required.	Closure did not violate § 3509(e); methodological choice upheld.
Do counts II and III under § 2241(c) offend the Double Jeopardy Clause when based on separate acts in a single encounter?	Yazzie: separate acts during last encounter constitute single offense.	Congress intended separate punishments for each listed act.	No Double Jeopardy violation; each listed act is a separate offense.

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-factor framework for courtroom closures)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (overriding interest must be narrowly tailored and findings specific)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (public access and protective interests in closures)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure)
Geise v. United States, 262 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1958) (child-victim testimony supports closure to protect communication)
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (confrontation concerns with child testimony and alternatives)
Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. 1992) (reasonable alternatives to closure must be considered)
Rhoden v. Rowland, 10 F.3d 1457 (9th Cir. 1993) (single transaction can give rise to multiple offenses under separate statutes)
United States v. Two Elk, 526 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (§ 2241(c) punishes separate acts, not a single course of conduct)