Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charleygreen2 sentences2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr 2020In Drummond, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a trial judge orders a partial, as opposed to a total, closure of a court proceeding, ‘a “substantial reason” rather than Waller’s “overriding interest” will justify the closure.’” Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 , 2006-Ohio-5084 , 854 N.E.2d 1038 , at ¶ 53, quoting Woods v. Kuhlmann, 977 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir.1992), quoting United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1356-1357 (9th Cir.1992). | 2 | 2 |
Alonzo Woods v. Robert Kuhlmann, Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr 2020In Drummond, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “[w]hen a trial judge orders a partial, as opposed to a total, closure of a court proceeding, ‘a “substantial reason” rather than Waller’s “overriding interest” will justify the closure.’” Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 , 2006-Ohio-5084 , 854 N.E.2d 1038 , at ¶ 53, quoting Woods v. Kuhlmann, 977 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir.1992), quoting United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349, 1356-1357 (9th Cir.1992). | 2 | 2 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riversidegreen2 sentences2001Such a closure may not, however, be predicated upon the mere possibility that an interest will be prejudiced, see United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir.1995); rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that there must be a ‘substantial probability’ that the interest in question will be prejudiced by open testimony, see Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [of California), 478 U.S. 1, 14 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). 2001Such a closure may not, however, be predicated upon the mere possibility that an interest will be prejudiced, see United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir.1995); rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that there must be a ‘substantial probability’ that the interest in question will be prejudiced by open testimony, see Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [of California), 478 U.S. 1, 14 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). | 2 | 2 |
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr 2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr | 1 | 4 |
United States v. John Doe, James Roegreen2 sentences2001Such a closure may not, however, be predicated upon the mere possibility that an interest will be prejudiced, see United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir.1995); rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that there must be a ‘substantial probability’ that the interest in question will be prejudiced by open testimony, see Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [of California), 478 U.S. 1, 14 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). 2001Such a closure may not, however, be predicated upon the mere possibility that an interest will be prejudiced, see United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir.1995); rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that there must be a ‘substantial probability’ that the interest in question will be prejudiced by open testimony, see Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court [of California), 478 U.S. 1, 14 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). | 1 | 2 |
Gilbert Nieto v. George Sullivangreen1 sentence2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jason Simmonsgreen1 sentence2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bondgreen2 sentences2022The court of appeals nonetheless concluded that the closure failed to satisfy the Waller test as modified by Drummond for partial closures: “Regrettably, we are constrained to reverse this case,” it concluded, because “the violation of the right to a public trial is structural error that affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” 2020-Ohio-398 at ¶ 30 . 2022The court of appeals nonetheless concluded that the closure failed to satisfy the Waller test as modified by Drummond for partial closures: “Regrettably, we are constrained to reverse this case,” it concluded, because “the violation of the right to a public trial is structural error that affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” 2020-Ohio-398 at ¶ 30 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 7891green2 sentences2003See United States v. Osborne (1995), 68 F.3d 94 , 9-11 (distinguishing Waller in this manner and citing other circuits that also refuse to apply the four-part Waller test to partial closings and instead apply a substantial reason test). 2003See United States v. Osborne (1995), 68 F.3d 94 , 9-11 (distinguishing Waller in this manner and citing other circuits that also refuse to apply the four-part Waller test to partial closings and instead apply a substantial reason test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Drummond
green
2 sentences2022In Drummond, the court concluded “[w]hen a trial judge orders a partial, as opposed to a total, closure of a court proceeding, a ‘substantial reason’ rather than Waller's ‘overriding interest’ will justify the closure.” 111 Ohio St.3d 14, 53 , 2006-Ohio-5084 , 854 N.E.2d 1038 . {¶35} In the instant case, prior to the testimony of Dr. Lee, the deputy coroner who autopsied both victims, the following statement was made by the trial court: The time is now 10:04 a.m., and we have reconvened in Case 21- CR-0013. 2007So over the objection of the defendant I’m clearing the courtroom just for today only. * * * ” 111 Ohio St.3d 14 , 2006-Ohio-5084 , 854 N.E.2d 1038 , at ¶ 32-34. {¶ 83} Bearing the above in mind, we now turn to the record in the present case and review the matter applying the Waller factors. | 4 | 2007–2022 |
Steven Ayala v. Hubert Speckard, Superintendent of Groveland Correctional Facility
green
2 sentences2001As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Ayala I: “The first prong of the Waller test requires that before a courtroom be closed to the public, the party seeking the closure must present evidence of an ‘overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.’ Id. 2001As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Ayala I: “The first prong of the Waller test requires that before a courtroom be closed to the public, the party seeking the closure must present evidence of an ‘overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.’ Id. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2022Waller analysis {¶ 50} In Waller, the United States Supreme Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether closure of the courtroom is necessary: (1) “the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,” (2) “the closure must not be broader than necessary to protect that interest,” (3) “the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,” and (4) “it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Id., 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 . {¶ 51} In Drummond, we held that “when a tr | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Dubose
green
2 sentences2018Cuyahoga No. 87556, 2007-Ohio-1460 , at ¶ 15 (finding that the trial court’s removal of two spectators from the courtroom during a witness’s testimony implicated the appellant’s right to a public trial); Dubose, 174 Ohio App.3d 6 , 2007-Ohio-7217 , 884 N.E.2d 75 , at ¶ 76 (finding that the removal of some of the spectators, but not members of the media, constituted closure and needed to satisfy the Waller factors). 2018Cuyahoga No. 87556, 2007-Ohio-1460 , at ¶ 15 (finding that the trial court’s removal of two spectators from the courtroom during a witness’s testimony implicated the appellant’s right to a public trial); Dubose, 174 Ohio App.3d 6 , 2007-Ohio-7217 , 884 N.E.2d 75 , at ¶ 76 (finding that the removal of some of the spectators, but not members of the media, constituted closure and needed to satisfy the Waller factors). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lane
green
2 sentences2017The court stated that "a public trial assures testimonial trustworthiness by inducing fear of testimony falsely given * * *; * * * a public trial makes the proceedings known to a possible material witness who might otherwise be unknown to the parties * * *; and * * * public trial allows the public to learn about the functioning of their government." (Internal citations omitted.) Id. {¶ 33} For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court's failure to satisfy the Waller test and lack of a substantial reason to close the trial to the public, as required by Drummond , violated appellant's Sixth 2017The court stated that "a public trial assures testimonial trustworthiness by inducing fear of testimony falsely given * * *; * * * a public trial makes the proceedings known to a possible material witness who might otherwise be unknown to the parties * * *; and * * * public trial allows the public to learn about the functioning of their government." (Internal citations omitted.) Id. {¶ 33} For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court's failure to satisfy the Waller test and lack of a substantial reason to close the trial to the public, as required by Drummond , violated appellant's Sixth | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cosentino v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2008Id. {¶ 41} In Perry , supra, the court employed a "triviality standard," not the Waller test, in a case where the trial court excluded the defendant's eight-year old son from the trial. 2008Id. {¶ 41} In Perry , supra, the court employed a "triviality standard," not the Waller test, in a case where the trial court excluded the defendant's eight-year old son from the trial. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
cluster 780569
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 889, citing United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 995 , 958 (9 th Cir. 2003). 2008Id. at 889, citing United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 995 , 958 (9 th Cir. 2003). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Washington
green
1 sentence2008Courtrooms may be closed if there is "persuasive evidence of serious risk to an important interest * * *." State v. Washington (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 268 , 271 (citations omitted). {¶ 17} In Waller v. Georgia (1984), 467 U.S. 39 , 46 , the United States Supreme Court set forth the following factors to determine the necessity of courtroom closure: "[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be *Page 8 prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to cl | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.