Right to a public trial

Will Scott Roeder get a new trial for the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller?

On April 8, 2011 the Kansas Court of Appeals issued it's decision in State v Barnes (slip opinion 102290) reversing the aggravated robbery conviction of Dywand Barnes after the trial court had closed the court room during the defendant's jury trial, thereby violating the defendant's constitutional right to a public trial as guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution. In doing so, the court noted that the right to a public trial is a fundamental constitutional right (State v. Barnes, slip opinion 102290 p. 7) and that the violation of the right to a public trial is never harmless (State v. Barnes p. 10)

While this Kansas Court of Appeals opinion is interesting, it may not have much practical impact. After all, most trials are conducted in an open court room and it is a rare event in which the court room is closed to the public. As a general rule the only cases which may be affected by this ruling are the high profile cases or cases in smaller jurisdictions where it is logistically impossible to accommodate the public due to the size of the available facilities.

However, of local, and perhaps national, interest is the implications this ruling may have on the ultimate outcome of the trial of Scott Roeder for the killing of long time abortionist, doctor George Tiller. During Mr. Roeder's trial, the trial court closed portions of the jury selection process to the public. As blogged about here previously (see: http://mandmlaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/us-supreme-court-rules-that-right-to.html), the decision to close the jury selection portion of Roeder's trial came a mere week before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Presley v. Georgia ___ U.S. ____, (2010) (Slip Opinion 09-5270) that the Sixth Amendment right to a public extends to the jury selection process. In Mr. Roeder's case, the closure of the court room was limited and both the Barnes and Presley cases recognize that the right to a public trial is not without limitations, However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Presley and the Kansas Court of Appeals' decision in Barnes raises the question of whether Mr. Roeder's conviction might be reversed and a new trial be ordered.

Mr. Roeder has appealed his conviction to Kansas Supreme Court and his appeal is currently pending. However, whether the issue of defendant's right to a public trial will be raised remains to be seen as the brief on behalf of Mr. Roeder has not yet been filed. According to court records Mr. Roeder's brief is due on May 20, 2011.

U.S Supreme Court rules that right to public trial extends to jury selection.

In reviewing recent Supreme Court decision, it was noticed that On January 19, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Presley v. Georgia that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the Jury Selection process. See: Http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-5270.pdf

The Court's decision in and of itself was interesting to those of us who defend citizens who are accused of crimes. However, it was particularly interesting to note the date of the decision as it was issued approximately one week after the Sedgwick County District Court had excluded the public from part of the jury selection in the trial of Scott Roeder who was later convicted of killing late term abortionist George Tiller.

While the Supreme Court did leave some leeway for the limitation of the right to a public trial during voire dire under certain circumstances the court specifically found that such circumstances would be rare and noted the need for care in balancing the interest in closing the proceedings against the right to a public trial.

The High Court's decision suggests a potential appeal issue for Mr. Roeder and the possibility of a new trial if it is determined that the trial court failed to properly balance the right to a public trial against those interests which motivated the closure of the proceedings.

The Court's ruling is also of particular interest to those who proceed to trial in smaller jurisdictions where the size of the court rooms may routinely result in the exclusion of the public during the jury selection process.