Wilder v. United States
806 F.3d 653
1st Cir.2015Background
- Darren Wilder was convicted in 2006 of transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography; this court affirmed on direct appeal, noting strong evidence against him.
- Wilder filed a § 2255 petition raising, among other claims, for the first time that jury selection violated his Fifth Amendment right to be present and Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
- At trial, the judge asked general voir dire questions in open court then conducted individual follow-up questioning in the jury deliberation room (not visible from the gallery); defense counsel was present but Wilder and his family were not. No contemporaneous objection was made.
- At the § 2255 evidentiary hearing, the district court credited defense counsel’s testimony that he advised Wilder to remain in the courtroom to promote juror candor and found Wilder not credible that he had not been so advised.
- The district court denied relief on both claims as procedurally defaulted (no cause and prejudice shown) and, alternatively on the Sixth Amendment claim, on the merits as the private questioning was the functional equivalent of sidebar and thus not a complete closure.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding Wilder could not overcome procedural default and rejecting his claims of actual prejudice or structural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilder’s Fifth Amendment right to be present was violated by exclusion from individual juror questioning | Wilder: Exclusion from private individual voir dire denied his right to be present at jury empanelment | Gov: No contemporaneous objection; counsel reasonably advised Wilder to remain outside to elicit candid juror answers; no prejudice | Court: Procedurally defaulted; counsel’s conduct was reasonable strategy (no cause); no actual prejudice given strong evidence against Wilder |
| Whether Wilder’s Sixth Amendment public-trial right was violated by closing the gallery during individual voir dire | Wilder: Private voir dire of jurors about sensitive child-pornography issues closed the most critical part of jury selection and violated public-trial right | Gov: Initial voir dire and peremptory challenges were public; the private questioning was the functional equivalent of a sidebar and commonly accepted practice | Court: Procedurally defaulted; counsel’s conduct objectively reasonable (no cause); no structural error because not a complete closure; no per se prejudice |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel can excuse procedural default (cause) | Wilder: Counsel failed to object and was ignorant of the law regarding public-trial right | Gov: Counsel’s choice was an objectively reasonable strategy to promote juror candor; ignorance not shown to be unreasonable | Court: No ineffective assistance under Strickland; strategy reasonable, so no cause to excuse default |
| Whether the closure (if any) was structural error requiring no showing of prejudice | Wilder: Argued the private voir dire was effectively a full closure and thus structural | Gov: It was akin to sidebar—partial closure—so Waller standards and structural-error presumption do not apply | Court: Not a complete closure; no structural error; no presumption of prejudice; procedural default stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (procedural requirements to justify courtroom closure)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public-trial right extends to jury selection)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (historical and functional importance of open proceedings)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (First Circuit: denial of public trial as structural error in full closure of jury selection)
- Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75 (counsel reasonably agreeing to private individual voir dire to elicit candid juror responses)
- Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (discussion of counsel performance and public-trial claims)
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 617 F.3d 581 (no prejudice from private individual voir dire where outcome speculative)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Melendez, 594 F.3d 28 (no prejudice where jury composition change not shown)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors)