90 N.Y.2d 493 (1997)
To close a courtroom during an undercover officer’s testimony, the prosecution must demonstrate a substantial probability that the officer’s safety or effectiveness would be prejudiced by open-court testimony, and the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest.
Summary
These cases address when a trial court can close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer in a “buy-and-bust” drug case. The Court of Appeals held that closure is permissible only when the prosecution establishes a substantial probability that the officer’s safety or effectiveness would be compromised by open-court testimony. Further, it clarified that while the trial court must consider alternatives to closure, the defendant bears the responsibility of suggesting specific, viable alternatives if the initial closure showing is sufficient and not facially overbroad. The Court affirmed the convictions, finding the showings adequate in both cases and no alternatives proposed by the defense.
Facts
In People v. Ramos, undercover officers testified that they were actively working in the area where the defendant’s arrest occurred and had seen past subjects in and around the courthouse. One officer had been threatened in the past. In People v. Ayala, an undercover officer testified he was actively working in the precincts encompassing both the arrest site and the courthouse, and had been threatened previously in an unrelated case. In both cases, the officers took precautions to conceal their identities when entering the courthouse.
Procedural History
Both defendants were convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. In both cases, the trial courts granted the People’s motions to close the courtroom during the undercover officers’ testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the courtroom closures.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the factual showings of potential harm to active undercover witnesses were sufficient to justify courtroom closure during their testimony.
2. Whether the trial courts erred in failing to consider, on their own and on the record, possible alternatives that were less restrictive than courtroom closure.
Holding
1. Yes, because the officers demonstrated a specific, articulable risk to their safety and effectiveness based on their ongoing undercover work in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse and arrest location.
2. No, because while the trial court must consider alternatives to closure, the defendant has the responsibility to propose specific, viable alternatives if the initial closure showing is sufficient and not facially overbroad.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on Waller v. Georgia, which established a four-part test for courtroom closure: (1) the party seeking closure must advance an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary; (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives; and (4) the court must make adequate findings to support the closure.
The Court emphasized that a defendant’s right to a public trial is fundamental but not absolute. It reiterated its holding in People v. Martinez that a per se rule of closure for all undercover officers is impermissible; a specific link must be established between the officer’s safety concerns and open-court testimony in the particular case. “The nexus might be established, for example, by references to ‘associates of defendant or targets of investigation likely to be present in the courtroom, or to threats received.’”
Applying these principles, the Court found the showings adequate in both cases. In Ramos, the officers testified to ongoing undercover work in the same precinct as the arrest and the courthouse, and that they had seen prior subjects in and around the courthouse. In Ayala, the officer identified specific precincts of ongoing activity. These showings, coupled with the officers’ efforts to conceal their identities, established a substantial probability of prejudice.
Regarding alternatives to closure, the Court clarified that while Waller requires the trial court to “consider reasonable alternatives,” it does not mandate explicit consideration on the record, nor does it specify who bears the burden of suggesting alternatives. The Court held that, when the record supports closure and it is not facially overbroad, the onus is on the party opposing closure to suggest alternative procedures. The Court reasoned that placing the burden solely on trial courts would be impractical and incentivize defendants to remain silent, particularly when proposed alternatives might be prejudicial to the defendant. As no alternatives were proposed and the showings were sufficient, the Court found no error.