415 S.W.3d 404
Tex. App.2013Background
- Samuel Johnson Jr. was murdered in December 2010; Vanessa Cameron (his former girlfriend) was charged with murder and convicted by a jury; sentence: 70 years and $5,000 fine.
- Before voir dire, bailiffs directed Cameron’s family/friends out of the courtroom because 65 venire members were to be seated; defense counsel objected on Sixth Amendment public-trial grounds.
- The trial judge repeatedly stated he had not formally closed voir dire but said there was no space, cited security concerns, and suggested alternatives (opening doors to a small foyer for observers or placing chairs) but did not implement or document specific accommodations.
- Post-conviction, Cameron filed a motion for new trial with affidavits from family/friends attesting they were excluded; State submitted bailiffs’ affidavits denying an intentional exclusion and the trial court adopted findings saying it never ruled the public excluded.
- The appellate majority found the record showed the courtroom was effectively closed during voir dire, the court failed to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance (notably did not split the venire), and made insufficient specific findings; it reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Cameron's Argument | State/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cameron’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated during voir dire | Voir dire was closed when bailiffs excluded family/friends; court failed to take every reasonable measure to accommodate the public and did not make adequate findings | Court never formally closed proceedings; lack of space and security concerns made accommodation impractical; offered foyer alternative | Reversed: voir dire effectively closed; court failed to take/implement reasonable alternatives (e.g., split venire) and did not make specific findings; structural error requires new trial |
| Whether oral statements should have been suppressed (art. 38.22, Fifth/14th Amendments) | Statements were obtained in violation of Texas Constitution and federal due process/miranda protections | Trial court denied suppression based on its rulings (record not addressed because reversal on public-trial issue) | Not reached due to reversal on public-trial ground |
| Admissibility of rebuttal evidence of alleged prior solicitation (Rules 403/404(b)) | Such rebuttal evidence was prejudicial and should have been excluded | Trial court allowed rebuttal as permissible evidence (record not addressed on appeal) | Not reached due to reversal on public-trial ground |
| Adequacy of trial court’s findings to justify any exclusion | Findings lacked specific, concrete facts about venire contamination or safety threats; alternatives not considered/implemented | Court made general findings and contemporaneous statements about space/security; trial court’s recollection and findings entitled to deference | Court’s findings were insufficiently specific; appellate review found closure and inadequate Waller analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Sixth Amendment public-trial right extends to voir dire; trial court must take reasonable measures to accommodate public)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (determine closure by totality of evidence and whether court took every reasonable measure to accommodate public)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (failure to consider splitting venire or adequate alternatives violated public-trial right)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public-trial principles and importance of openness and accountability)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (violation of right to public trial is structural error)