## Facts

- A residential development in Río Grande, Puerto Rico experienced septic-tank overflows that caused raw sewage to surface in the neighborhood.
- Under the direction of Braulio Agosto-Vega, employees associated with his real-estate development company collected the sewage and disposed of it into Jiménez Creek.
- Jiménez Creek was used for fresh water and recreation and flowed into the Espíritu Santo River, which emptied into the Atlantic Ocean.
- The sewage was transported and discharged through an underground pipe and/or a large truck registered to Agosto-Vega’s car dealership corporation.
- The government alleged discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act.
- The district court closed the courtroom to the public during jury selection, excluding even family members, citing limited seating and concern about juror-spectator interactions.
- The court did not make specific findings supporting total closure and did not evaluate alternatives such as reserving public seating, dividing the venire, or issuing non-interaction instructions.
- A jury convicted Agosto-Vega and the corporate defendant on conspiracy and substantive counts (including aiding-and-abetting liability).

## Issues

1. Whether excluding the public from the courtroom during voir dire, without specific findings and without considering reasonable alternatives, violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Clean Water Act convictions, including proof that the discharge reached “waters of the United States” and that the defendants knowingly participated (including conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories).

## Decision

- The First Circuit vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that closing the courtroom during jury selection violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right.
- The court treated the violation as structural error requiring reversal without harmless-error review.
- The court separately held that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, so retrial was not barred by double jeopardy.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial applies to jury selection.
- Courtroom closure during voir dire is permissible only upon an overriding interest supported by case-specific, on-the-record findings, and the closure must be narrowly tailored.
- Before excluding the public, a trial court must consider and reject reasonable alternatives to closure.
- An unjustified closure of voir dire is structural error requiring vacatur of the convictions.
- On sufficiency review, the evidence is assessed in the light most favorable to the verdict; a conviction stands if a rational jury could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Evidence that a tributary flows to a river and then to an ocean may support a finding that discharges entered “waters of the United States” for Clean Water Act criminal liability.
- Criminal liability under conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories may be supported by proof of authority, control, and circumstantial evidence of knowing participation by an officer and associated corporate entities.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court’s blanket closure of the courtroom during voir dire, without findings or consideration of alternatives, violated the Sixth Amendment and constituted structural error; however, it upheld the legal sufficiency of the Clean Water Act evidence, allowing retrial.


United States v. Agosto-Vega, 617 F.3d 541 (1st Cir. 2010)