U.S. v. Al-Smadi

Citation15 F.3d 153
Decision Date24 January 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-2099,AL-SMADI,93-2099
Parties22 Media L. Rep. 1319 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zuhair I.a/k/a, Sudgi Asad, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Submitted on the Briefs: *

Stuart L. Stein, P.A., Santa Fe, NM, for defendant-appellant.

Larry Gomez, Acting U.S. Atty., and Robert J. Gorence, Asst. U.S. Atty., Albuquerque, NM, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOORE, ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

After normal working hours, the federal courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico is closed to the public. See generally 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-20.302 (1993). Consistent with normal practice, this occurred at 4:30 p.m. during the second day of Mr. Al-Smadi's five-day trial for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The court security officers failed to keep the front doors of the courthouse open past 4:30 p.m., given that a trial was in progress. Defense counsel's wife and child were unable to gain access to the second-floor courtroom when they attempted to enter the courthouse after 4:30 p.m. At 4:50 p.m., the trial adjourned. Mr. Al-Smadi appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a mistrial on the grounds that the closing of the courthouse denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. See generally Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 44-46, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2214-15, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984); Davis v. Reynolds, 890 F.2d 1105, 1109 (10th Cir.1989). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and we affirm.

The underlying facts concerning the closure as found by the district court will be accepted unless clearly erroneous; however, whether the closure violated the Sixth Amendment is a legal issue which we review de novo. See Nieto v. Sullivan, 879 F.2d 743, 749-54 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 957, 110 S.Ct. 373, 107 L.Ed.2d 359 (1989). Mr. Al-Smadi argues that, in the absence of a substantial reason to partially close his trial, see United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542, 545-47 (10th Cir.1991), the district court could not merely reject his Sixth Amendment claim with the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Aplt. App. at 20.

The denial of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial requires some affirmative act by the trial court meant to exclude persons from the courtroom. See People v. Peterson, 81 N.Y.2d 824, 595 N.Y.S.2d 383, 611 N.E.2d 284, 285 (1993); People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 526 N.Y.S.2d 932, 521 N.E.2d 1075, 1078, cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1239, 108 S.Ct. 2911, 101 L.Ed.2d 943 (1988). The brief and inadvertent closing of the courthouse and hence the courtroom, unnoticed by any of the trial participants, did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Peterson, 595 N.Y.S.2d at 384, 611 N.E.2d at 285; State v. Clayton, 109 Ariz. 587, 514 P.2d 720, 727-28 (1973). Although Mr. Al-Smadi notes that "[t]he trial judge was silent as to what steps, if any, are taken by his chambers to assure that the building remains open when criminal trials go beyond ... 4:30 p.m.," Aplt. Br. at 3, nothing indicates that the situation recurred and we are confident...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Mays v. Clark, No. CIV S-10-533 LKK CHS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 26 Marzo 2012
    ...hold that the exclusion of a single excused juror from the trial did not implicate the right to a public trial); United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153, 154-55 (10th Cir. 1994) (applying Peterson to hold that the brief and inadvertent closure of the courtroom did not implicate the Sixth Ame......
  • Marcusse v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 26 Octubre 2012
    ...trial unless there is some "affirmative act by the trial court meant to exclude persons from the courtroom." United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1994). Here, there was no affirmative act of exclusion, for seating limitations alone do not create Sixth Amendment violations.......
  • In re Orange
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 2004
    ...of jurors about safety concerns was so trivial as not to implicate Sixth Amendment right to a public trial); United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir.1994) (brief, inadvertent closing of courthouse during trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a public Thus, the majority......
  • U.S. v. Lampley, s. 96-7074
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 20 Octubre 1997
    ...to the effect of the Oklahoma City bombing, we will review that court's constitutional findings de novo. United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153, 154 (10th Cir.1994) (citing Nieto v. Sullivan, 879 F.2d 743, 749-54 (10th Cir.)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 957, 110 S.Ct. 373, 107 L.Ed.2d 359 B. De......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • An Open Courts Checklist: Clarifying Washington's Public Trial and Public Access Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 87-4, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...137 P.3d at 832-33 (Madsen, J., concurring) (citing Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir. 1994); Snyder v. Coiner, 510 F.2d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 1975); Blackwell v. State, 663 P.2d 12, 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 348. See supra note 25......
  • CLOSED COURTROOMS: SIXTH AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC TRIAL RIGHT IMPLICATIONS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Vol. 22 No. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...(125.) Id. at 303-304. (126.) Id. at 304-305. (127.) Id. at 305. (128.) Id. at 305-06. (129.) Id. at 306; cf. United States v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1994) ("The denial of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial requires some affirmative act by the trial court m......
  • Courthouses must stay open when conducting trials after business hours, rules Wis. Court of Appeals.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2007, November 2007
    • 9 Julio 2007
    ...and what parts of the trial were closed." Turning to the merits, the court first rejected the State's argument, based on U.S. v. Al-Smadi, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir. 1994), that, because there was no affirmative act by the court to close its doors, Vanness should not receive a new trial. The co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT