Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States v. Zuhair I. Al-Smadi A/k/a, Sudgi Asad
United States v. Zuhair I. Al-Smadi A/k/a, Sudgi Asad, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir. 1994)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1994-01-24
- Topic
- litigation
concluding that closure, which was “brief and inadvertent,” “unnoticed by any of the trial participants,” and occurred only once, did not violate defendant’s public-trial rights | concluding that before a defendant can claim a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, “some affirmative act by the trial court meant to exclude persons from the courtroom” must occur | holding that 20-minute closure of trial was de minimis solely because it was inadvertent | holding that 20-minute closure of trial was de minimis solely because it was inadvertent | holding that 20-minute closure of trial was de minimis solely because it was inadvertent | holding that 20-minute closure of trial was de minimis solely because it was inadvertent | holding that the defendant was not denied a public trial where the courthouse closed at its usual time, 4:30 p.m., the trial continued for no more than twenty minutes, and only defense counsel's wife and child were prevented from entering | holding that a closure that was not ordered by the trial court but rather was the result of standard courthouse practices, was “brief and inadvertent,” “unnoticed by any of the trial participants,” and occurred only once did not violate the Sixth Amendment | holding that the defendant was not denied a public trial where the courthouse closed at its usual time, 4:30 p.m., the trial continued for no more than twenty minutes, and only defense counsel’s wife and child were prevented from entering | holding "[t]he 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" | holding "[t]he 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" | holding "[t]he 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" | holding "[t]he 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" | brief, inadvertent closing of courthouse during trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial | “[t]he brief and inadvertent closing of the courthouse and hence the courtroom, unnoticed by any of the trial participants, did not violate the Sixth Amendment” | where bailiff would not allow people to leave or enter the courtroom during arguments, no violation | “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.” | where court security officer closed courthouse doors 20 minutes before trial proceedings complete, no violation | defendant’s wife and child unable to enter courtroom when trial continued 20 minutes past the closing of the federal building in which the courtroom was located | 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 | "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."
Citator
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
After normal working hours, the federal courthouse in Santa Fe, New Mexico is closed to the public. See generally 41 C.F.R. § 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. § 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. § 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, un *155 noticed 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 that appropriate steps will be taken to avoid it.
AFFIRMED.