People v. Clemons, 78 N.Y.2d 48 (1991)
A trial court’s decision to close the courtroom based on a witness’s asserted embarrassment requires an adequate inquiry to ensure the closure is necessary to protect an overriding interest and that the defendant’s right to a public trial is not unnecessarily sacrificed.
Summary
In a prosecution for assault, controlled substance possession, and weapon possession, the trial court closed the courtroom to the defendant’s family and friends during the cross-examination of a key prosecution witness, the defendant’s former girlfriend, based on the prosecutor’s representation that she would be embarrassed to testify about the defendant forcing cocaine on her in connection with sexual practices. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance, holding that the trial court’s inquiry was insufficient to justify the closure because the court relied solely on the prosecutor’s representations without directly questioning the witness about her alleged embarrassment. This violated the defendant’s right to a public trial.
Facts
The defendant was prosecuted for assault, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a weapon.
The prosecution’s key witness, the defendant’s former girlfriend, initially denied using cocaine or allowing the defendant to bring drugs into her apartment.
Medical records revealed she had told hospital personnel she used cocaine.
The prosecutor stated that when confronted, the witness claimed the defendant forced cocaine on her during sexual practices and she didn’t consider that “use” by her; she feared public humiliation by the defendant’s relatives and friends if she disclosed these facts.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial but allowed him to recall the witness.
The prosecutor moved to close the courtroom during the witness’s additional cross-examination due to her alleged embarrassment; the defense objected.
The trial court, taking “judicial notice” of the testimony’s embarrassing nature, excluded the defendant’s family, friends, and other uninterested spectators.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry to justify closing the courtroom to the defendant’s family and friends based on the prosecutor’s representation that a witness would be unduly embarrassed by her testimony.
Holding
No, because the trial court’s sole reliance on the prosecutor’s representations, without directly questioning the witness about her alleged embarrassment, was insufficient to justify the courtroom closure. The Court held that this violated the defendant’s right to a public trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that witness embarrassment or anxiety could, in appropriate circumstances, warrant courtroom closure. However, the court emphasized that such a decision requires an adequate inquiry to balance the witness’s concerns against the defendant’s right to a public trial. The court stated, “A witness’ embarrassment or anxiety might in appropriate circumstances warrant closure.” The court found the trial court’s inquiry insufficient because it relied solely on the prosecutor’s representations without any direct assessment of the witness’s claimed embarrassment. The court quoted People v. Jones, 47 NY2d 409, 414-415, stating the inquiry was not “careful enough to assure the court that the defendant’s right to a public trial is not being sacrificed for less than compelling reasons.” The court suggested that the trial judge should have conferred with the witness herself to assess the validity and extent of her claimed embarrassment, similar to the procedure in People v. Joseph, 59 NY2d 496, where the trial judge conferred with the complainant in the robing room. The absence of such an inquiry rendered the closure improper in this case.