Vidal v. Williams, 1750
| Decision Date | 29 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 1750,D,1750 |
| Citation | 31 F.3d 67 |
| Parties | Peter VIDAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph WILLIAMS, Superintendent of Fulton Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee. ocket 93-2548. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Diane E. Courselle, Staff Atty., New York City (Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City, Ira Mickenberg, for petitioner, Joseph M. Nursey, Supervising Atty., counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Alan S. Rafterman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bronx, NY (Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Bronx County, Allen H. Saperstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, LUMBARD and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
Peter Vidal appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Preska, J., dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court held that Vidal's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was not violated when his criminal trial in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, was closed to the public--including Vidal's parents--during the testimony of an undercover police officer. As we conclude that the exclusion of Vidal's parents was improper, we reverse and remand.
The trial testimony showed the following. On January 5, 1988, undercover police officer Irvin Noak, police officer James O'Connell, and a backup team conducted a "buy and bust" operation at a small grocery store at 866 Union Avenue in the Bronx. Noak entered the store and offered to purchase crack cocaine from Vidal who was working behind the counter. Vidal offered to sell a $20 vial of crack, which Noak purchased with pre-recorded buy money. Noak then left the store and radioed Vidal's description to O'Connell, who was waiting a few blocks away. O'Connell and the backup unit arrested Vidal and three other individuals, and seized twenty-nine vials of crack cocaine and $10 of the prerecorded buy money. Noak then drove by the front of the store and identified Vidal as the seller.
Vidal was charged with sale of a controlled substance, possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, and possession of a controlled substance. At trial, the state called Officers O'Connell and Noak. Prior to Noak's testimony, the prosecution made an application to close the courtroom during Noak's testimony in order to protect his identity as an undercover officer.
At an in camera hearing, Noak testified that he was still working undercover in an anti-crack unit that operated in the vicinity of 866 Union Avenue. He feared that his life would be in danger if his identity became known, as other undercover officers had been threatened or harmed after their identities had been disclosed.
Defense counsel requested that Vidal's parents, who were present at trial, be allowed to remain in the courtroom during Noak's testimony. Vidal's parents lived near the courthouse on Gerard Avenue, and to counsel's knowledge they did not frequent the vicinity of 866 Union Avenue.
The court granted the prosecution's application and closed the courtroom during Noak's testimony. The court found that Noak feared for his life and safety, that Noak was still involved in undercover activities in the same area, and that other undercover officers had been threatened and even wounded. The court closed the courtroom to Vidal's parents because Noak worked in a Bronx-wide unit, there were many high-drug areas near the courthouse, and "it's conceivable and entirely possible that the officer may be recognized by them while he's involved in another undercover operation, and if the defendant is convicted, ... [his parents] may not have a fondness for the officer."
Vidal was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of sale of a controlled substance, and was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of five to fifteen years. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, People v. Vidal, 172 A.D.2d 228, 567 N.Y.S.2d 727 (1st Dept.1991), and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, People v. Vidal, 78 N.Y.2d 927, 577 N.E.2d 1072, 573 N.Y.S.2d 480 (1991).
On January 11, 1993, Vidal filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District, claiming that the state had violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. On July 20, 1993, the court denied the application without a hearing, finding that the closure was justified under the circumstances. Vidal appeals, arguing that the trial court was required to keep the courtroom open to the general public, or at least to his parents.
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial "may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests." Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2215, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). A court may close a criminal trial over the defendant's objection if the following requirements are met the party seeking to close the [trial] must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.
Id. at 48, 104 S.Ct. at 2216. At issue is whether the exclusion of Vidal's parents was "necessary to protect" the state's interest in assuring Noak's safety. 1 We conclude that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Schriver
...who he wanted in the courtroom, then cause the State to show why any such person should not be present. See, e.g., Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir. 1994), [cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1102, 115 S.Ct. 778, 130 L.Ed.2d 672 (1995)]. Still another approach could have been for [the undercov......
-
Walker v. State
...repeated requests, the court certainly realized that appellant wanted his family to attend his trial. The case of Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1102, 115 S.Ct. 778, 130 L.Ed.2d 672 (1995), is also instructive with respect to a family's right to attend a......
-
State v. Ndina
...Court's requirement, announced in In re Oliver, that such individuals be allowed in the courtroom.") (citation omitted); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) ("[T]he Supreme Court has specifically noted a special concern for assuring the attendance of family members of the See al......
-
State v. Drummond
...entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged"); see, also, Vidal v. Williams (C.A.2, 1994), 31 F.3d 67, 69. Although we do not condone the removal of family members from the courtroom, in this case, we hold that the trial court's......
-
Trial
...standard for exclusion of family).] Merely living in proximity to the officer’s area of operation does not suffice. [ Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1994) (exclusion improper where no evidence that defendant’s parents were inclined to harm a police officer).] Improper closure of the......
-
Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
...safety could be endangered by testifying in open court, and explain[ed] in rough terms the basis of his fear"). But see Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir. 1994) (reversing the district court's denial of habeas corpus where the defendant's parents were excluded from the courtroom "to......
-
Daniel Levitas, Scaling Waller: How Courts Have Eroded the Sixth Amendment Public Trial Right
...safety could be endangered by testifying in open court, and explain[ed] in rough terms the basis of his fear"). But see Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir. 1994) (reversing the district court's denial of habeas corpus where the defendant's parents were excluded from the courtroom "to......
-
CLOSED COURTROOMS: SIXTH AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC TRIAL RIGHT IMPLICATIONS.
...entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged."); see also Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir. 1994) (observing the Supreme Court's "special concern" for ensuring family attendance at criminal (107.) Agosto-Vega, 617 F.3d a......