Habeas ruling in closed-courtroom case in favor of defendant is reversed

This habeas corpus case asks when it is constitutionally permissible for a criminal court to close the courtroom to the public. Normally, when criminal trials are closed to the public, even for brief time periods, that violates the constitutional right to a public trial, requiring a new trial for the defendant, even if the jury found him guilty.

The case is Jordan v. Lamanna, issued on May 5. The criminal defendant was charged with killing her eight-year old son by giving him pharmaceutical drugs. She was convicted of manslaughter. During trial, the prosecutor wanted to bring to the court's attention a website that said the very trial involving the defendant was a sham because evidence was being wrongly excluded. The prosecutors said the defendant had sent a link to this website to over 100 contacts. Because of this, the prosecutors said, the judge should remind the jury to avoid the media during trial so the website would not influence their opinion of the case. In all, the courtroom was closed for a few minutes for purposes of this discussion.

The district court granted the habeas petition, citing the Sixth Amendment's right to public trials. New trial for defendant! The Court of Appeals (Leval, Sack and Park) reverses. She remains guilty! 

 

You cannot win a habeas petition unless the constitutional violation during the state criminal trial violated clearly established constitutional law as defined by the Supreme Court. This means that some constitutional violations will not get you habeas relief if the violation had yet to be defined by the Supreme Court. This is one of those cases. 

While Supreme Court cases have held that a closed jury selection process violates the Sixth Amendment, as well as suppression hearings that take place prior to the criminal trial itself, it has never ruled on whether a closed proceeding like this violates the Sixth Amendment. Such a proceeding does not discuss trial evidence; it instead was a conference among counsel and the court about whether to charge the jury to avoid the media during trial. The public was not shut off from any testimony or other proceedings that went directly to the defendant's guilt or innocence.

When the district court granted the habeas petition, the defendant was set free from prison. If the prosecutor so chooses, and I assume it will, defendant will undergo another trial.