People v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawPublic trialCourtroom closureSixth Amendmentpublic trialspectator exclusioncourtroom closureper se reversal

Facts

After the first day of testimony ended and the jurors had been dismissed for the day, the trial court excluded a spectator from the courtroom because the court believed he had been sleeping and described his behavior as disrespectful and distracting to jurors. The court told the spectator, apparently a friend of the defendant, that he was excluded for the rest of the trial and was not to return. Defense counsel objected, argued that he had not heard any disturbance, and noted that the court had given no warning before imposing a total exclusion. The next day the court stated that the spectator was no longer excluded, but the spectator was not present and the trial resumed immediately without any further effort to ensure he could attend.

Issue

Whether the trial court violated the defendant's right to a public trial by excluding a spectator from the courtroom for the rest of the trial based on alleged sleeping or distracting behavior, without sufficiently considering less drastic alternatives. Also at issue was whether the court's statement the next day that the spectator was no longer excluded cured any error.

Rule

Although trial courts possess inherent discretionary power to exclude members of the public from the courtroom, that power may be exercised only when unusual circumstances necessitate it. An affirmative act by the trial court excluding persons from the courtroom without lawful justification violates the defendant's right to a public trial, and such a violation is not subject to harmless-error review but instead requires per se reversal. In determining whether exclusion is justified, the court must sufficiently consider less drastic measures that could address the spectator's conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a felony assault trial in Brooklyn, the judge sees the defendant’s cousin, Lena Ortiz, nod off briefly in the gallery. Without giving any warning, the judge orders Lena removed and says she may not return for the remainder of the trial. Defense counsel objects that Lena made no noise and could have been warned.

If the defendant is convicted, what is the strongest argument on appeal?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a trial court may exclude spectators only when unusual circumstances necessitate it, and the court must sufficiently consider less drastic alternatives, such as a warning or direction to change behavior. A blanket exclusion for the rest of trial, imposed without that consideration, is an unjustified affirmative exclusion and violates the defendant’s public-trial right. The error is structural and does not require a showing of prejudice or harmlessness. (Derived from People v. White (n.d.).)