People v. Joseph
| Decision Date | 12 July 1983 |
| Citation | 465 N.Y.S.2d 915,452 N.E.2d 1243,59 N.Y.2d 496 |
| Parties | , 452 N.E.2d 1243 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael JOSEPH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The right to a public trial does not preclude a Presiding Judge from excluding all spectators, including a defendant's family and friends, during a particular witness's testimony when the circumstances warrant such action to foster the truth-discovery process.
Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The charges arose out of a 1977 incident in which defendant and another man accosted and robbed a young couple, and sodomized the woman, who was 19 years old at the time.
At the 1979 trial, after opening statements, the Assistant District Attorney requested that the courtroom be cleared while the complainant testified, given the sensitive and embarrassing nature of her evidence. Defense counsel objected, stating that the only persons present were defendant's wife, sister, mother, and "other people who are concerned about him." The Trial Judge conferred on the record in the robing room with counsel and the complainant. After hearing the victim state her concern about testifying and noting that the charge involved particularly "demeaning" acts, the Judge granted the prosecutor's request. The rest of the trial was open to all, and defendant's family was present during the remainder of the People's case and throughout the presentation of the defense.
We disagree with defendant's contention that the court closure during the victim's testimony denied him his right to a public trial. A defendant is generally guaranteed a public trial (U.S. Const., 6th Amdt.; Civil Rights Law, § 12), but the court has discretion in certain trials, including those for rape or sodomy, to "exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court" (Judiciary Law, § 4). Seizing on dicta in Matter of Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 271-272, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506-507, 92 L.Ed. 682, defendant asserts a constitutional right to have his relatives and friends present throughout all stages of the trial. That case, however, involved a situation where the entire trial was conducted without public access. In contrast, the trial here was closed only during the testimony of the victim who had declared that she was tense and would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coopersmith v. Gold
...pretrial hearing on admission of certain evidence). Thus, closure of portions of a trial have been upheld. People v. Joseph, 59 N.Y.2d 496, 465 N.Y.S.2d 915, 452 N.E.2d 1243 (1983); People v. Smallwood, 31 N.Y.2d 750, 338 N.Y.S.2d 433, 290 N.E.2d 435 (1972). Similarly, access to documents o......
-
People v. Clemons
...and degree of any psychological or emotional impact testifying in open court would have on the witness (cf., People v. Joseph, 59 N.Y.2d 496, 465 N.Y.S.2d 915, 452 N.E.2d 1243 [Trial Judge conferred with complainant and counsel in robing room]. Nor does the record indicate that the Judge ha......
-
People v. Kan
...interpreters to comprehend the testimony and proceedings in this first degree drug sale prosecution (cf., People v. Joseph, 59 N.Y.2d 496, 498-499, 465 N.Y.S.2d 915, 452 N.E.2d 1243). Thus, the closure was not "narrowly tailored" in this respect as is also required (Press-Enterprise Co. v. ......
-
Duffitt v. State
...in trial court's allowing clergy to sit by witness while she testified regarding details of rape); People v. Joseph (1983), 59 N.Y.2d 496, 465 N.Y.S.2d 915, 452 N.E.2d 1243 (within trial court's discretion to exclude public from courtroom because victim-witness was tense and uncomfortable);......