People v. Colon, 13 N.Y.3d 71 (2009)

When a courtroom is closed to the public, a defendant may request the presence of a person with a special relationship that provides moral and emotional support akin to that of a family member; the trial court should admit that person unless the prosecution demonstrates a specific reason for exclusion.

Summary

Colon was convicted of selling heroin. The trial court closed the courtroom to the public to protect undercover officers’ safety, but denied Colon’s request to allow his drug counselor to attend, while allowing his brother. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that excluding the drug counselor violated Colon’s right to a public trial. Where a defendant demonstrates a special relationship with a proposed spectator who can provide moral and emotional support similar to a family member, that spectator should be admitted unless the prosecution shows a specific reason for exclusion. The court found Colon’s relationship with his drug counselor met this threshold, and the trial court erred by excluding him without further inquiry.

Facts

Colon was arrested and charged with selling two bags of heroin to an undercover officer. Prior to testimony from undercover officers, the prosecution sought to close the courtroom to the public, citing safety concerns for the officers pursuant to People v. Hinton. The trial court granted the motion.

Procedural History

After the closure motion was granted, Colon requested that his brother and drug counselor be allowed to attend the trial. The trial court permitted Colon’s brother to attend but denied the request for his drug counselor, stating there was no necessity for him to attend and that he was not a family member. Colon appealed his conviction, arguing that he was denied his right to a public trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court violates a defendant’s right to a public trial by excluding a non-family member, specifically a drug counselor, from a closed courtroom when the defendant asserts that the individual provides moral and emotional support?

Holding

Yes, because where a defendant demonstrates a special relationship between the defendant and a proposed spectator of a kind that enables the proposed spectator to give the defendant the kind of moral and emotional support that might be expected from a family member, the trial court should admit that spectator to an otherwise closed courtroom unless the prosecution shows a specific reason for his or her exclusion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the principle established in Waller v. Georgia, stating that courtroom closures must be “no broader than necessary” to protect the overriding interest justifying the closure. New York precedent requires that family members generally be allowed unless specific reasons exist for their exclusion. The court distinguished between a mere “friend” and someone with a significant personal relationship, such as a drug counselor. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the defendant to show that a proposed spectator is linked to him by some tie of more significance than ordinary friendship. Here, identifying the person as his drug counselor was enough to establish a prima facie showing of a significant personal relationship, inferring that he could provide moral and emotional support. The court noted that while inquiries could have been made to further assess the relationship, outright exclusion without inquiry was a violation of Colon’s right to a public trial. The court stated, “Where a spectator’s presence really is important, the burden we have placed on defendant should not be difficult to meet, and indeed we have concluded that it was met in this case.”