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
- Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to voir dire.
- 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.
- 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.