People v. Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54 (1991)

A trial court’s power to exclude the public from a trial, while discretionary, must be “sparingly exercised” and any closure must be no broader than necessary to protect a demonstrated, overriding interest, especially when it infringes on a defendant’s right to a public trial and their family’s presence.

Summary

Kin Kan was convicted of a drug offense after a trial where the courtroom was closed during the testimony of a key cooperating witness due to fears of retaliation. This closure excluded everyone, including Kan’s family. The New York Court of Appeals reversed her conviction, holding that the blanket closure, specifically the exclusion of Kan’s family, violated her Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court emphasized that while the right to a public trial is not absolute, closure must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific findings, which were lacking in this case regarding Kan’s family.

Facts

Kan, along with a codefendant Harry Ip, and an accomplice were charged with drug offenses. The accomplice pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Kan and Ip. Prior to the trial, the prosecution requested the courtroom be closed to the public during the accomplice’s testimony, citing fears of retaliation due to the gang-related nature of the crime. The accomplice testified he feared retaliation from Kan’s associates and from individuals involved in ongoing investigations where he was a confidential informant. The trial court granted the request, closing the courtroom to all spectators during the accomplice’s testimony.

Procedural History

Kan and Ip were convicted. Ip’s conviction was affirmed on appeal in state court but later overturned in federal court on habeas corpus review, based on a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Kan’s appeal to the Appellate Division resulted in a reversal of her conviction, citing the federal court’s decision in Ip’s case. A dissenting Justice granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then heard Kan’s appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court violated Kan’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by closing the courtroom to all spectators, including her family, during the testimony of a key witness, based on generalized fears of retaliation without specific findings justifying the exclusion of her family.

Holding

Yes, because the trial court’s closure order was broader than necessary to protect the witness’s safety and lacked specific justification for excluding Kan’s family, thus violating her Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the four-prong test from Waller v. Georgia to assess the closure’s propriety. The court found deficiencies in all four prongs, specifically regarding the exclusion of Kan’s family. First, while the state presented an overriding interest in protecting the witness, the court found the closure was broader than necessary. The accomplice stated that he did not fear Kan’s family specifically. Second, the court stated, “The trial court did not specify or justify closure with respect to Kan’s family on the record, despite her counsel’s specific objection in that regard, and we discern no record basis for doing so.” Third, reasonable alternatives to closure were not sufficiently explored, particularly the possibility of allowing Kan’s family to remain. The court noted Kan’s need for her family’s presence, as she did not speak English and relied on interpreters. The Court emphasized the importance of narrowly tailoring any closure to the specific circumstances, stating that “the balance of interests must be struck with special care”. The court also noted that because Kan was deprived of her constitutional right to a public trial, reversal and a new trial were required irrespective of prejudice, citing People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 415-417. It concluded that this right was violated because the closure was not “narrowly tailored” in respect to Kan’s family’s exclusion. The Court declined to address the impact of the federal court decision in codefendant Ip’s case, deciding the issue based on independent review of Kan’s direct appeal.