A cocaine trafficker wanted his guilty verdict overturned because the judge kept the public out during voir dire, that is, during the questioning of potential jurors. Such a claim was decided upon when raised in the interest of the public at large, but it was somewhat less clear if a defendant could raise the claim.* The Supreme Court summarily reversed the state court for rejecting his claim in a 7-2 unsigned opinion** without the benefit of oral argument. It recognized that keeping the public out in a criminal trial is not absolutely prohibited:
"[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure."
Furthermore, this must be done carefully:
"be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered."
It is true that the Prop 8 trial is not a criminal trial and the public was allowed in the courtroom But, the general principles apply, a civil trial if anything often raising less problems than a criminal trial of a drug trafficker. Also, the importance of the Prop 8 case as compared to a run of the mill drug case also is notable.
The principle of "no broader than necessary" applies in the Prop 8 context as well. Lest we forget, the Supreme Court did not stop a YouTube trial. No, the narrow question was allowing it to be broadcast to a few more courthouses. Also, the ability to shut off the cameras even there for certain sensitive witnesses also was present. Again, "reasonable alternatives" were present. This included letting the appeals court or those in charge of overseeing the cameras (e.g., respected conservative/libertarian Judge Kozinksi) guard against abuses.
But, I guess the two are not quite on point. How so, well that's somewhat open to question. Interesting timing, btw.
---
* One such ruling -- dealing with a sensitive motion to keep evidence from the jury in a criminal trial -- unanimously honored the benefits of openness over the objection of the defendant. Ditto when the state objected. (As to sensitive matters, see Justice Marshall's concurring opinion). The principles raised in no way is limited to criminal trials or the specific courtroom in question.
** Adding to a trend, it also handed down another per curiam (if closely divided) as well, involving a serious matter but with some um tasty details.
It also is an interesting parlor game to wonder who wrote the opinion. The reference to "our dissenting colleagues" is telling. A quick search suggests a possible answer, particularly since it matches the most senior of the five.