Bone-Club analysis in Washington

2026State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 609 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018). 4 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 9 No. 40241-0-III State v. Jarrett If a defendant’s public trial right is implicated, we next determine whether there was a closure without a Bone-Club analysis.5 State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 35 , 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

2025It is undisputed that a Bone-Club analysis was not 2 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 5 No. 39840-4-III State v. Quintanilla conducted.

2026State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 609 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018). 4 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 9 No. 40241-0-III State v. Jarrett If a defendant’s public trial right is implicated, we next determine whether there was a closure without a Bone-Club analysis.5 State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 35 , 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

2026State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 609 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018). 4 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 9 No. 40241-0-III State v. Jarrett If a defendant’s public trial right is implicated, we next determine whether there was a closure without a Bone-Club analysis.5 State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 35 , 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

2015Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004). ¶39 In 2004, one year before Dallin Fort’s trial and three years before this court’s Frawley decision, our state high court addressed the application of the Bone-Club factors to the closure of the courtroom during voir dire.

2015Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004). ¶39 In 2004, one year before Dallin Fort’s trial and three years before this court’s Frawley decision, our state high court addressed the application of the Bone-Club factors to the closure of the courtroom during voir dire.

2026State v. Schierman, 192 Wn.2d 577, 609 , 438 P.3d 1063 (2018). 4 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 9 No. 40241-0-III State v. Jarrett If a defendant’s public trial right is implicated, we next determine whether there was a closure without a Bone-Club analysis.5 State v. Paumier, 176 Wn.2d 29, 35 , 288 P.3d 1126 (2012).

2025It is undisputed that a Bone-Club analysis was not 2 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 5 No. 39840-4-III State v. Quintanilla conducted.

2013State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009). ¶9 Generally, before a trial court can close any part of a trial from the public, it must first apply, on the record, the five-part Bone-Club analysis.

2013State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009). ¶9 Generally, before a trial court can close any part of a trial from the public, it must first apply, on the record, the five-part Bone-Club analysis.

2018Thus, in the case of a structural error where there is an objection at trial and the issue is raised on Of particular note conceming Salinas's assertion of stmctural error based on the trial court's failure to expressly employ a Bone-Club analysis before closure, the Weaver court opined about the importance of such written findings as follows: A public-trial violation can occur, moreover, as it did in Presley [v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 , 130 S. Ct. 721 , 175 L.

2018Thus, in the case of a structural error where there is an objection at trial and the issue is raised on Of particular note conceming Salinas's assertion of stmctural error based on the trial court's failure to expressly employ a Bone-Club analysis before closure, the Weaver court opined about the importance of such written findings as follows: A public-trial violation can occur, moreover, as it did in Presley [v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 , 130 S. Ct. 721 , 175 L.

2015The improper closure of the courtroom during voir dire is presumed to be prejudicial to the defendant and, correspondingly, is a manifest error affecting a 2 But see State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 , 217 P.3d 321 (2009) where the voir dire courtroom closure without a Bone-Club analysis was not considered a structural error because the trial court effectively considered the Bone-Club factors and the defendant was an active proponent of the closure.

2015The improper closure of the courtroom during voir dire is presumed to be prejudicial to the defendant and, correspondingly, is a manifest error affecting a 2 But see State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 , 217 P.3d 321 (2009) where the voir dire courtroom closure without a Bone-Club analysis was not considered a structural error because the trial court effectively considered the Bone-Club factors and the defendant was an active proponent of the closure.

2015State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 , 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). ¶6 In a recent decision, we adopted a three-step framework for analyzing whether a trial court violated the defendant’s public trial right: we determine (1) whether the portion of the proceeding at issue implicates the public trial right, which we analyze using an “experience and logic” analysis, (2) whether there was a closure of that proceeding, and (3) whether the closure was justified (did the court conduct a Bone-Club analysis on the record prior to closing the proceeding?).

2015State v. Wise, 176 Wn.2d 1 , 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). ¶6 In a recent decision, we adopted a three-step framework for analyzing whether a trial court violated the defendant’s public trial right: we determine (1) whether the portion of the proceeding at issue implicates the public trial right, which we analyze using an “experience and logic” analysis, (2) whether there was a closure of that proceeding, and (3) whether the closure was justified (did the court conduct a Bone-Club analysis on the record prior to closing the proceeding?).

2025State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 520 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (“A closure unaccompanied by a Bone-Club analysis on the record will almost never be considered justified.”).

2025State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 520 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (“A closure unaccompanied by a Bone-Club analysis on the record will almost never be considered justified.”).

2010App. 797, 808 , 173 P.3d 948 (2007) (even where only “a limited portion of voir dire was held outside the courtroom,” that fact “does not excuse the [trial court’s] failure to engage in a Bone-Club analysis”); State v. Frawley, 140 Wn.

2010But we have held that "conducting voir dire out of the courtroom constitutes a `closure' that mandates Bone-Club analysis even when the trial court has not explicitly closed the proceedings." State v. Heath, 150 Wash. App. 121, 127 , 206 P.3d 712 (2009) (citing State v. Erickson, 146 Wash.App. 200, 211 , 189 P.3d 245 (2008)); see also State v. Frawley, 140 Wash.App. 713, 720 , 167 P.3d 593 (2007).

2018The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose." 128 Wash.2d at 258-59 , 906 P.2d 325 (alteration in original) (quoting Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d 205 , 210-11, 848 P.2d 1258 (1993) ); see also Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 -49 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 (applying similar analysis). ¶488 The Bone-Club analysis provides a sound rule of decision for trial courts to determine when a closure is justified-an analysis that cannot be made after the fact.

2018The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose." 128 Wash.2d at 258-59 , 906 P.2d 325 (alteration in original) (quoting Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121 Wash.2d 205 , 210-11, 848 P.2d 1258 (1993) ); see also Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 -49 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 (applying similar analysis). ¶488 The Bone-Club analysis provides a sound rule of decision for trial courts to determine when a closure is justified-an analysis that cannot be made after the fact.

2020Both Hundtofte and Doe L. were civil cases in which 25 State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598, 605 , 354 P.3d 841 (2015) (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ). 26 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ). 27 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ); see Smith 181 Wn.2d at 520 (explaining that a Bone-Club analysis is required for this analysis). 28 See id. (no public trial violation if, under step two, no closure occurred). 29 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 516-17 ). 30 Id. at 606 (quoting State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 257 P.3d 624 (2011)). 31 181 Wn.2d 1 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 32 7 Wn.

2020Both Hundtofte and Doe L. were civil cases in which 25 State v. Love, 183 Wn.2d 598, 605 , 354 P.3d 841 (2015) (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ). 26 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ). 27 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 513-14 ); see Smith 181 Wn.2d at 520 (explaining that a Bone-Club analysis is required for this analysis). 28 See id. (no public trial violation if, under step two, no closure occurred). 29 Id. (citing Smith, 181 Wn.2d at 516-17 ). 30 Id. at 606 (quoting State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85, 93 , 257 P.3d 624 (2011)). 31 181 Wn.2d 1 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 32 7 Wn.

2010App. 713 , 167 P.3d 593 (2007). ¶11 Noting “the court’s independent obligation to safeguard the open administration of justice,” Duckett held that “[a]ny closure of a public judicial proceeding required the trial court to engage in the Bone-Club analysis.” Duckett, 141 Wn.

2010App. 713 , 167 P.3d 593 (2007). ¶11 Noting “the court’s independent obligation to safeguard the open administration of justice,” Duckett held that “[a]ny closure of a public judicial proceeding required the trial court to engage in the Bone-Club analysis.” Duckett, 141 Wn.

2015The court noted that approving the trial court’s closure of voir dire would undermine twenty years of legal precedence. ¶40 Also before Dallin Fort’s trial, the Evergreen State high court, in State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005), reversed another criminal conviction because of closure of jury selection to the public without consideration of the Bone-Club factors.

2015The court noted that approving the trial court’s closure of voir dire would undermine twenty years of legal precedence. ¶40 Also before Dallin Fort’s trial, the Evergreen State high court, in State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005), reversed another criminal conviction because of closure of jury selection to the public without consideration of the Bone-Club factors.

2015The trial court may, under limited circumstances, close the courtroom after applying the Bone-Club factors and making specific findings on the record justifying closure. “[ N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial, or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 292 P.3d 715 2012 ).

2015The trial court may, under limited circumstances, close the courtroom after applying the Bone-Club factors and making specific findings on the record justifying closure. “[ N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial, or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 292 P.3d 715 2012 ).

2015Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004). ¶39 In 2004, one year before Dallin Fort’s trial and three years before this court’s Frawley decision, our state high court addressed the application of the Bone-Club factors to the closure of the courtroom during voir dire.

2015Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004). ¶39 In 2004, one year before Dallin Fort’s trial and three years before this court’s Frawley decision, our state high court addressed the application of the Bone-Club factors to the closure of the courtroom during voir dire.

2015App. 713 , 167 P.3d 593 (2007), aff’d, 181 Wn.2d 452 , 334 P.3d 1022 (2014) (plurality opinion), in which we reversed and remanded a criminal prosecution for a new trial because the trial court closed voir dire without weighing the Bone-Club factors on the record.

2015App. 713 , 167 P.3d 593 (2007), aff’d, 181 Wn.2d 452 , 334 P.3d 1022 (2014) (plurality opinion), in which we reversed and remanded a criminal prosecution for a new trial because the trial court closed voir dire without weighing the Bone-Club factors on the record.

2025State v. Frawley, 181 Wn.2d 452, 459 , 334 P.3d 1022 (2014); see also State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 520 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (“A closure unaccompanied by a Bone-Club analysis on the record will almost never be considered justified.”).

2025State v. Frawley, 181 Wn.2d 452, 459 , 334 P.3d 1022 (2014); see also State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 520 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014) (“A closure unaccompanied by a Bone-Club analysis on the record will almost never be considered justified.”).

2010App. 797, 802-03 , 173 P.3d 948 (2007), that the trial court must engage in the five-part Bone-Club analysis before conducting all or a portion of voir dire outside of the public forum of the courtroom.

2010App. 797, 802-03 , 173 P.3d 948 (2007), that the trial court must engage in the five-part Bone-Club analysis before conducting all or a portion of voir dire outside of the public forum of the courtroom.

2015The court noted that approving the trial court’s closure of voir dire would undermine twenty years of legal precedence. ¶40 Also before Dallin Fort’s trial, the Evergreen State high court, in State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005), reversed another criminal conviction because of closure of jury selection to the public without consideration of the Bone-Club factors.

2015The court noted that approving the trial court’s closure of voir dire would undermine twenty years of legal precedence. ¶40 Also before Dallin Fort’s trial, the Evergreen State high court, in State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005), reversed another criminal conviction because of closure of jury selection to the public without consideration of the Bone-Club factors.

2015The improper closure of the courtroom during voir dire is presumed to be prejudicial to the defendant and, correspondingly, is a manifest error affecting a 2 But see State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 , 217 P.3d 321 (2009) where the voir dire courtroom closure without a Bone-Club analysis was not considered a structural error because the trial court effectively considered the Bone-Club factors and the defendant was an active proponent of the closure.

2015The improper closure of the courtroom during voir dire is presumed to be prejudicial to the defendant and, correspondingly, is a manifest error affecting a 2 But see State v. Momah, 167 Wn.2d 140 , 217 P.3d 321 (2009) where the voir dire courtroom closure without a Bone-Club analysis was not considered a structural error because the trial court effectively considered the Bone-Club factors and the defendant was an active proponent of the closure.

2013Appellate counsel’s sole argument in the petition was that the trial court had erred in denying D’Allesandro’s request for a lesser included instruction. ¶14 Four months later, in June 2006, the Court issued State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006), 9 holding that the trial court had committed reversible error in closing the courtroom to Easterling and to the public during a pretrial hearing on his codefendant’s motion to sever jury trials without first conducting a Bone-Club analysis.

2013Appellate counsel’s sole argument in the petition was that the trial court had erred in denying D’Allesandro’s request for a lesser included instruction. ¶14 Four months later, in June 2006, the Court issued State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006), 9 holding that the trial court had committed reversible error in closing the courtroom to Easterling and to the public during a pretrial hearing on his codefendant’s motion to sever jury trials without first conducting a Bone-Club analysis.

2013State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009). ¶9 Generally, before a trial court can close any part of a trial from the public, it must first apply, on the record, the five-part Bone-Club analysis.

2013State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009). ¶9 Generally, before a trial court can close any part of a trial from the public, it must first apply, on the record, the five-part Bone-Club analysis.

2014No. 68846-4-1/6 both the experience and logic prongs is yes, the public trial right attaches and the trial court must analyze the proposed closure using the Bone-Club factors.16 In Sublett, our Supreme Court concluded that the public trial right did not attach to an in-chambers proceeding where the trial court answered a jury question with only counsel present.17 Under the experience prong, the lead opinion looked to CrR 6.15, which addresses jury instructions and directs that the question, answer, and objections to jury instructions be included in the record.18 The lead opinion explained that

2014No. 68846-4-1/6 both the experience and logic prongs is yes, the public trial right attaches and the trial court must analyze the proposed closure using the Bone-Club factors.16 In Sublett, our Supreme Court concluded that the public trial right did not attach to an in-chambers proceeding where the trial court answered a jury question with only counsel present.17 Under the experience prong, the lead opinion looked to CrR 6.15, which addresses jury instructions and directs that the question, answer, and objections to jury instructions be included in the record.18 The lead opinion explained that

2014This was so because "Morris's appellate counsel had but to look at this court's public trial jurisprudence to recognize the significance of closing a courtroom without first conducting a Bone-Club analysis." Morris. 176 Wn.2d at 167 .

2014This was so because "Morris's appellate counsel had but to look at this court's public trial jurisprudence to recognize the significance of closing a courtroom without first conducting a Bone-Club analysis." Morris. 176 Wn.2d at 167 .

2023State v. Beskurt, 176 Wn.2d 441, 447-48 , 293 P.3d 1159 (2013) (lead opinion); id. at 456 (Stephens, J., concurring).10 The trial court did not err by failing to engage in a Bone-Club analysis.

2023State v. Beskurt, 176 Wn.2d 441, 447-48 , 293 P.3d 1159 (2013) (lead opinion); id. at 456 (Stephens, J., concurring).10 The trial court did not err by failing to engage in a Bone-Club analysis.