Reagan v. United States

• Decision Date: 03 February 1913
• Docket Number: 2,139.
• Citation: 202 F. 488
• Parties: REAGAN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

202 F. 488

REAGAN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 2,139.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 3, 1913

T. C West, Fernand de Journel, and Joseph T. Curley, all of San Francisco, Cal., and James Wickersham and J. E. Coffer, both of Fairbanks, Ala., for plaintiff in error.

John L McNab, U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.

GILBERT Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the United States District Court for the Fourth District of the Territory of Alaska under an indictment which charged him with the crime of rape upon the body of one Violet Myers, a female person under the age of 16 years.

The assignment of error principally relied upon is that the court, at the beginning of the trial, directed that the spectators should leave the courtroom; whereupon the bailiffs cleared the courtroom of spectators, and counsel for the plaintiff in error noted an exception to the court's order.The court then said:

'Your exception is granted.I made that order for the reasons, first, that I believe many are here out of morbid curiosity; second, I feel that the jurors in the box can listen to the testimony better if not bothered by people in the courtroom; and, in the third place, I am not feeling good myself this morning, and I can listen to the testimony of the witnesses and objections of counsel better than if I am bothered with noise in the courtroom.Counsel: I only want to object upon the ground that the defendant is entitled to a public trial.Court: He is getting a public trial except for those reasons.The record may show that it is upon my own motion, without any request from either side.'

There is no provision of the Code of Alaska guaranteeing to the accused in a criminal case the right to a public trial; but the right of the plaintiff in error to demand a public trial is found in the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

The question presented by the assignment of error is one upon which the authorities differ.In some of the decisions it is held that the exclusion of spectators from the courtroom is a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to a public trial, and that prejudice will in all cases be presumed therefrom.People v. Murray,89 Mich. 27650 N.W. 995, 14 L.R.A. 809, 28 Am.St.Rep. 294;People v. Yeager,113 Mich. 228, 71 N.W. 491;Tilton v. State,5 Ga.App. 59, 62 S.E. 651;State v. Hensley,75 Ohio St. 255, 79 N.E. 462, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 277, 116 Am.St.Rep. 734, 9 Ann.Cas. 108;People v. Hartman,103 Cal. 242, 37 P. 153, 42 Am.St.Rep. 108.In the case last cited, however, the order was more stringent than the order in the case at bar; for it excluded 'all persons except the officers of the court and the defendant. ' Other decisions hold that if the courtroom is barely large enough for the officers of the court, the witnesses, and the jurymen, or if spectators become disorderly or boisterous with laughter, so as to interfere with the court and confuse the witnesses, they may be excluded without depriving the defendant of his constitutional right.Kugadt v. State,38 Tex.Cr.R. 681, 44 S.W. 989;State v. Callahan,100 Minn. 63, 110 N.W. 342;Grimmett v. State,22 Tex.App. 36, 2 S.W. 631, 58 Am.Rep. 630;Lide v. State,133 Ala. 63, 31 So. 953;People v. Kerrigan,73 Cal. 222, 14 P. 849.If, for the reasons given in the cases last referred to, the court may exclude spectators, we see no ground for holding that the court may not exclude them in a case such as the case at bar; for if the defendant in a criminal trial has the constitutional right to the presence of spectators in the courtroom at all times during the trial, and the deprivation of that right shall be presumed prejudicial to him, he ought not to be deprived of it under any circumstances, no matter what may be the conduct of the spectators, since he is not responsible for their conduct.We think the better doctrine is that it is not reversible error to exclude the spectators as was done by the order of the court in the case at bar, when there is no showing whatever that the defendant was prejudiced thereby, or deprived of the presence, aid, or counsel of any person whose presence might have been of advantage to him.The constitutional provision for a public trial should be construed in a reasonable sense, and in...