## Facts

- Eric Presley was tried in Georgia state court for a cocaine-trafficking offense.
- Before voir dire, the trial judge ordered the courtroom cleared of all spectators, including Presley’s uncle (the only observer present).
- The judge justified closure by citing limited space, the presence of 42 prospective jurors, and concern that spectators might “intermingle” with jurors or be overheard making prejudicial remarks.
- Defense counsel objected to excluding the public and requested an accommodation; the judge stated there was “no need” for the uncle to attend jury selection and allowed him to return only after the jury was selected.
- Presley was convicted and moved for a new trial, presenting evidence that jurors could have been seated in a way that left room for public attendance.
- The trial court denied relief; Georgia appellate courts affirmed, concluding the trial court had an overriding interest and was not required to consider alternatives to closure absent defense proposals.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to voir dire.
2. Whether a courtroom closure during jury selection is unconstitutional when the trial court does not apply the findings and safeguards required by *Waller v. Georgia*.
3. Whether the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closure even if the parties do not propose any.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia and remanded.
- The Court held that the Sixth Amendment public-trial right applies to jury selection.
- The Court held that the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by excluding the public from voir dire without satisfying *Waller*’s requirements.
- The Court held that trial courts must consider reasonable alternatives to closure sua sponte, even when not offered by the parties.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to voir dire.
- Before closing any stage of a criminal trial, courts must satisfy *Waller v. Georgia*:
  - identify an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced;
  - ensure the closure is no broader than necessary;
  - consider reasonable alternatives to closure; and
  - make findings adequate to support the closure.
- Trial courts have an affirmative obligation to take reasonable measures to accommodate public attendance and must consider alternatives to closure even absent party proposals.
- The defendant’s Sixth Amendment public-trial right is at least as protective as the public and press right of access recognized under the First Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that excluding the public from jury selection without complying with *Waller*—including failing to consider reasonable alternatives on the court’s own initiative—violates the Sixth Amendment, requiring reversal and remand.


Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010)