Cameron v. State

• Decision Date: 08 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. PD–1427–13,PD–1427–13
• Parties: Vanessa Cameron, Appellant v. The State of Texas
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

490 S.W.3d 57

Vanessa Cameron, Appellant

v.The State of Texas

No. PD–1427–13

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Delivered October 8, 2014

Opinion on Rehearing March 2, 2016

Gerald Goldstein, Attorney At Law, Donald H. Flanary, II, John T. Hunter, Law Office of John Hunter, San Antonio, for Appellant.

Jay Brandon, Assistant District Attorney, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, for the State.

Womack

, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Price, Johnson, Cochran, and Alcala, JJ., joined.

The appellant, Vanessa Cameron, contends that her constitutional right to a public trial was violated when the trial court excluded the public from the voir dire at the beginning of her trial for murder. She appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentence of 70 years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed her conviction,¹ and we granted review. We shall affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment remanding the case for a new trial.

Trial Proceedings

Before voir dire was begun, the bailiff removed all spectators from the courtroom. After the venire panel was seated and the judge called the case, the appellant's counsel stated:

I noticed prior to the Court calling the case for trial, the bailiff ushered out or secluded the general public, to include family and friends of my client. I would ask that family and friends be allowed to be present here in the courtroom during the voir dire. They're excluded and I—if they're excluded, I would just put for the record an objection to the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution

since she does have a right to the public trial.

A lengthy debate followed:

The Court: We recognize their right to be present during the voir dire. I'm looking around the courtroom, and the jury panel—we have 65 jury panel members that are going to be here. I notice for the record that every single chair that we have available for attorneys that come in during trial and every chair that we have available for other people have been removed and placed in the jury area because that is the only way we can accommodate the number of jurors in this courtroom.

So we're talking about 65 jury panel members. It's going to take up a huge majority of this courtroom, plus counsel table. I don't see any room whatsoever where anybody else would be able to sit and observe.

Now, during—before we called the case, we saw a pretty significant number of family members that were walking in. There is no way this courtroom can accommodate them, and I certainly appreciate the security concerns of the State—excuse me, of the sheriff's department. It is a public trial. It's an open trial. Certainly people have the opportunity to observe. We just don't know where to put them, Mr. Esparza.

Defense: Judge, is the Court overruling my objection?

The Court: No, I'm not ruling. I'm just telling you, where can we put them? Where are we going to put them?

Defense: I understand, Judge.

The Court: I'm not overruling you. Where are we going to put them?

Defense: And I still request a ruling from the Court.

The Court: Well, you're—you're objecting to something I haven't made a ruling. What is it that you're objecting to?

Defense: That the public has been excluded from—

The Court: No. No, no. The Court has never ruled that. I've never ruled that the public is excluded. All I'm saying, where do you suggest we put them?

Defense: We could bring in chairs and put them right here in front of the bench, Judge. We can find places to put them.

The Court: Okay. We have attorneys that are seated at both sides. We have security issues. That is unreasonable. Where would we put them? Are we going to have them stand here next to the—next to me? That—I think that would be considered a security risk. You want to open up those doors and have them all stand in that little hallway there so they can observe the whole thing? Maybe we could do that. Would that satisfy you?

Defense: I just wanted an alternative, Judge.

The Court: I'm giving you alternatives. Which one would satisfy you in a way that the bailiffs would feel that their job in keeping the courtroom safe and secure would be satisfied?

Defense: I can't suggest that. If you want to open those doors and put chairs and have people—have the public sit there, that's fine with me.

The Court: We don't have enough chairs. Are we going to—if you want, we can open up those doors in the back and have them stand to where they can observe and hear every single thing that's going on.²

The State: And, Your Honor, just for the record, I think that's going to be in violation of any fire codes in this city.

The Court: And that—I mean, we're having issues. Counsel obviously wants her entire family here. I mean, I don't know what else we could do. The courtroom's going to be absolutely stuffed with venire panel members. I don't know what we're going to do.

Defense: But there's no ruling from the Court on my objection.

The Court: Your objection is that people have been excluded from the Court.

Defense: Yes sir.

The Court: The Court has never ruled that way, so I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting to....

I am telling you that you can have people in this courtroom. I'm telling you that. Do you understand that? So there's no issue in regards to what it is that you're asking. I just don't know where to put them. So I'm not making a ruling that anybody's excluded. I'm not making a ruling denying anything you're asking because I haven't ruled on what it is that you're asking. I haven't told you that you cannot have people in the courtroom. Tell me where to put them and we'll put members of her family.

Defense: Okay. Thank you, Judge.

After this, the court went off the record and apparently continued the discussion, but there is no indication that any spectators were allowed into the court room.

Sometime after lunch and in the middle of the State's voir dire, the trial court added:

All right. And while we're on the record and the jury is out, I know that the State is still in the middle of their general voir dire. I just want to put something on the record.

Earlier defense asked if members of the defendant's family or other members could sit in, observe portions of the voir dire. The Court did not close the proceedings by any means, recognizing the 1st and 6th Amendment rights to the extent of the voir dire proceedings.

During the course of discussions, the Court did analyze the four-prong questions tested out in 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210

. Specifically, the Court considered the size and configuration of the courtroom. 65 venire panel members have been summoned to the courtroom. In order to accommodate all 65, there are about ten chairs that are placed in the gallery. Additionally, there are three or—three other chairs located next to the jury box. Every single chair in the gallery and in the jury box is filled with the 65 individuals.

The court reporter is seated directly in front of the defense table directly in front of the jury box, so there would be no room there. Directly in front of the defense table there is a table used by the probation department that has a computer, a printer, some files. Directly next to the defense table is a panel that has been set up by the defense for use during voir dire. Directly behind that panel is a box where the bailiffs sit, a bailiff's table.

The Court considered the size of the configuration. Court also considered alternative courts, knowing that the juries—the central jury room is not adequately sufficient for a trial such as this. Also, the Court is expecting a potentially emotionally charged jury trial, this originally being filed, I believe, as a capital. I know that it is now a murder charge.

As such, the space within the courtroom area for the participants and the bailiffs is very narrow. The Court does not want to make any jury or potential jurors feel in any way constrained with truthfulness and honesty, making them uncomfortable in regards to potential family members next to them.

Essentially, the bottom line is that the Court was concerned about safety and safety in the courtroom. Recognizing that the courtroom is not closed, Defense, before you begin your general voir dire, you're certainly able to bring in some family members and we will do our best to accommodate them in areas around the gallery where the Court, where the bailiffs feel security will not

be an issue. All right. Just wanted to put that on the record.³

This was the last the issue was discussed. The appellant was found guilty of murder by the jury, and the court assessed a sentence of 70 years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.

Law

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a ... public trial....”⁴ This right extends to voir dire proceedings⁵ and is necessary to insure that jurors, prosecutors, and the court are kept aware of their sense of responsibility and can properly carry out their functions.⁶ It discourages perjury by holding parties responsible to the public.⁷ A violation of this right is a structural error and does not require any showing of harm.⁸

The right to a public trial may give way to other competing rights or interests (such as a defendant's right to a fair trial). However, these circumstances should be rare, occurring only if: (1) there is an overriding interest (2) based on findings (3) that closure is essential to preserve higher values and (4) the closure is narrowly tailored to protect that value.⁹ Further, the trial court must issue findings specific enough for a reviewing court to determine if the closure was properly ordered.¹⁰

The party seeking to justify the closure carries the burden of proof of a specific overriding interest. It must be likely that this interest would be prejudiced in the current case, and the closure must be no broader than necessary. The trial court has the burden to consider all reasonable alternatives and make findings specific enough to support a closure.¹¹

Preservation of Error

The State...