Commonwealth v. Glen S. Alebord (September 21st, 2011)
Docket No. 09-P-1290
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, but he argues for postconviction relief because he was denied his right to a public trial because the public was excluded from the jury selection portion of the trial. The defendant’s friend, his sister, and his brother-in-law were prevented from entering the courtroom by a court officer because the court room was full and there were no more seating areas. The judge found that the exclusion was done for safety reasons, and that reasonable restrictions on court room access are permissible. The judge also found that the defendant waived his objection by failing to object during the trial, and the judge was not aware that the individuals were not allowed to enter the courtroom.
The courtroom in this case was closed, and a courtroom can be considered closed even without an express judicial order. If there is no more room in a courtroom, it can justify closing a courtroom to the public. However, the judge has to address the closing and determine whether there are other alternatives. Since that did not happen in this case, the closure of the courtroom does not satisfy the conditions set out in case law. Also, the defendant does not need to show prejudice in order to obtain a new trial if there has been a violation of the right to a public trial.
Issue: Did the defendant waive his right to a public trial?
No. The court does need to look into whether the objection was raised in a timely manner; the Commonwealth has the burden to show that the defendant knowingly waived his right to public trial, either personally or through counsel. The defendant here did not waive his right to a public trial. There is also an exception if the closure is found to be short, inadvertent, or trivial, but his exception does not apply here.
Conclusion: The order denying the motion for a new trial is vacated and the case is remanded. The closure here does not meet the four-factor test in Waller, the defendant never waived his right to a public trial, and the exclusion does not apply.
Prepared by KP
