10 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2018North Dakota adopted the Waller standard for evaluating violations of the right to a public trial, strictly requiring the trial court to make findings before closure. 467 U.S. 39 (1984); State v. Klem , 438 N.W.2d 798, 802 (N.D. 1989) (“An appellate court may not provide a post hoc rationale for why the trial court would have closed the trial had it held a hearing and made findings.”). 2018North Dakota adopted the Waller standard for evaluating violations of the right to a public trial, strictly requiring the trial court to make findings before closure. 467 U.S. 39 (1984); State v. Klem , 438 N.W.2d 798, 802 (N.D. 1989) (“An appellate court may not provide a post hoc rationale for why the trial court would have closed the trial had it held a hearing and made findings.”). | 4 | 5 |
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, IIgreen2 sentences2021See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 2 N.E.3d 145, 152 (Mass. 2014) (answering in the negative “the threshold question of whether the identification requirement was a closure of the court room in the constitutional sense”); State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015) (“before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a closure even occurred”). 2021See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 2 N.E.3d 145, 152 (Mass. 2014) (answering in the negative “the threshold question of whether the identification requirement was a closure of the court room in the constitutional sense”); State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015) (“before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a closure even occurred”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Klemgreen2 sentences2018North Dakota adopted the Waller standard for evaluating violations of the right to a public trial, strictly requiring the trial court to make findings before closure. 467 U.S. 39 (1984); State v. Klem , 438 N.W.2d 798, 802 (N.D. 1989) (“An appellate court may not provide a post hoc rationale for why the trial court would have closed the trial had it held a hearing and made findings.”). 2018North Dakota adopted the Waller standard for evaluating violations of the right to a public trial, strictly requiring the trial court to make findings before closure. 467 U.S. 39 (1984); State v. Klem , 438 N.W.2d 798, 802 (N.D. 1989) (“An appellate court may not provide a post hoc rationale for why the trial court would have closed the trial had it held a hearing and made findings.”). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2025State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206, ¶ 21 , 932 N.W.2d 106 (citing Rogers, 2018 4 ND 244 , ¶ 15). 2025State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206, ¶ 21 , 932 N.W.2d 106 (citing Rogers, 2018 4 ND 244 , ¶ 15). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2022“A de novo standard of review applies to whether facts rise to the level of constitutional violation.” Martinez, 2021 ND 42, ¶ 19 (citing Rogers, 2018 ND 244 , ¶ 3). [¶14] Here, the State concedes no analysis of the Waller factors was conducted for any of the non-public pretrial conferences. 2022“A de novo standard of review applies to whether facts rise to the level of constitutional violation.” Martinez, 2021 ND 42, ¶ 19 (citing Rogers, 2018 ND 244 , ¶ 3). [¶14] Here, the State concedes no analysis of the Waller factors was conducted for any of the non-public pretrial conferences. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Maldonadogreen2 sentences2021See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 2 N.E.3d 145, 152 (Mass. 2014) (answering in the negative “the threshold question of whether the identification requirement was a closure of the court room in the constitutional sense”); State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015) (“before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a closure even occurred”). 2021See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 2 N.E.3d 145, 152 (Mass. 2014) (answering in the negative “the threshold question of whether the identification requirement was a closure of the court room in the constitutional sense”); State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015) (“before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a closure even occurred”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Olivergreen1 sentence2021See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 272 (1948) (“[A]n accused is, at the very least, entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged.”); People v. Jones, 2020 CO 45, ¶¶ 31, 34, 43 , 464 P.3d 735 (reversing conviction because exclusion of defendant’s parents during testimony of two witnesses without first conducting Waller analysis violated his public trial right). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kranzgreen1 sentence2021See Kranz, 353 N.W.2d at 752-53 (“It is also the trial court’s responsibility to jealously preserve the right to trial by jury. . . . [A] trial court should not automatically approve jury trial waivers.”). | 1 | 1 |
v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2021See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 272 (1948) (“[A]n accused is, at the very least, entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged.”); People v. Jones, 2020 CO 45, ¶¶ 31, 34, 43 , 464 P.3d 735 (reversing conviction because exclusion of defendant’s parents during testimony of two witnesses without first conducting Waller analysis violated his public trial right). 2021See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 272 (1948) (“[A]n accused is, at the very least, entitled to have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged.”); People v. Jones, 2020 CO 45, ¶¶ 31, 34, 43 , 464 P.3d 735 (reversing conviction because exclusion of defendant’s parents during testimony of two witnesses without first conducting Waller analysis violated his public trial right). | 1 | 1 |
Kathleen A. Braun v. Barbara Powellgreen2 sentences2018Cir. 2007) (ruling “an eight-year-old’s presence in the courtroom would neither ‘ensure that judge and prosecutor carry out their duties responsibly’ nor ‘discourage perjury’”); United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 955 , 958- 60 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before applying the Waller test to determine whether the district court violated [defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, we must first determine whether the right attaches . . . .”); Braun v. Powell , 227 F.3d 908, 918-19 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding the permanent exclusion from trial of one person did not implicate defendant’s Sixth Amen 2018Cir. 2007) (ruling “an eight-year-old’s presence in the courtroom would neither ‘ensure that judge and prosecutor carry out their duties responsibly’ nor ‘discourage perjury’”); United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 955 , 958- 60 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before applying the Waller test to determine whether the district court violated [defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, we must first determine whether the right attaches . . . .”); Braun v. Powell , 227 F.3d 908, 918-19 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding the permanent exclusion from trial of one person did not implicate defendant’s Sixth Amen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Craig Ivestergreen2 sentences2018Cir. 2007) (ruling “an eight-year-old’s presence in the courtroom would neither ‘ensure that judge and prosecutor carry out their duties responsibly’ nor ‘discourage perjury’”); United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 955 , 958- 60 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before applying the Waller test to determine whether the district court violated [defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, we must first determine whether the right attaches . . . .”); Braun v. Powell , 227 F.3d 908, 918-19 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding the permanent exclusion from trial of one person did not implicate defendant’s Sixth Amen 2018Cir. 2007) (ruling “an eight-year-old’s presence in the courtroom would neither ‘ensure that judge and prosecutor carry out their duties responsibly’ nor ‘discourage perjury’”); United States v. Ivester , 316 F.3d 955 , 958- 60 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before applying the Waller test to determine whether the district court violated [defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, we must first determine whether the right attaches . . . .”); Braun v. Powell , 227 F.3d 908, 918-19 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding the permanent exclusion from trial of one person did not implicate defendant’s Sixth Amen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Presley v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2021The district court’s findings on the second and third Waller factors tersely state that the “closure does not appear to be overly broad,” and it “does not appear to this court that there are reasonable alternatives other than closing the courtroom for the testimony of Jane Doe.” The district court has “the duty to sua sponte consider reasonable alternatives to closure” and should consider the “widest possible array of alternatives.” Ledee, 762 F.3d at 230 -31 (citing Presley, 558 U.S. at 214 ). 2018Ultimately, trial courts must take "every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials." Presley , 558 U.S. at 215 , 130 S.Ct. 721 . [¶ 16] The Waller factors were not brought to the district court's attention here; nothing in the record indicates the court considered the factors, either explicitly or implicitly. | 2 | 2018–2021 |
State v. Decker
green
2 sentences2019We review the district court's application of the Waller factors "when evaluating claimed violations of the public trial right," Rogers , at ¶ 15, and therefore "strictly requir[e] the trial court to make findings before closure." Decker , 2018 ND 43 , ¶ 9, 907 N.W.2d 378 . 2019We review the district court's application of the Waller factors "when evaluating claimed violations of the public trial right," Rogers , at ¶ 15, and therefore "strictly requir[e] the trial court to make findings before closure." Decker , 2018 ND 43 , ¶ 9, 907 N.W.2d 378 . | 2 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2025The first Waller factor is: “The claiming party must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.” State v. Rogers, 2018 ND 244 , 919 N.W.2d 193 (citing Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Davis-Heinze
green
2 sentences2023See Rogers, 2018 ND 244 , ¶ 14; Davis-Heinze, 2022 ND 201, ¶ 4 . 2023See Rogers, 2018 ND 244 , ¶ 14; Davis-Heinze, 2022 ND 201, ¶ 4 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Olander
green
2 sentences2022Morales, 2019 ND 206, ¶ 34 (citing State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 28 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ). 2022Morales, 2019 ND 206, ¶ 34 (citing State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 28 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent
green
1 sentence2021Smith, 876 N.W.2d at 329 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Ledee
green
1 sentence2021The district court’s findings on the second and third Waller factors tersely state that the “closure does not appear to be overly broad,” and it “does not appear to this court that there are reasonable alternatives other than closing the courtroom for the testimony of Jane Doe.” The district court has “the duty to sua sponte consider reasonable alternatives to closure” and should consider the “widest possible array of alternatives.” Ledee, 762 F.3d at 230 -31 (citing Presley, 558 U.S. at 214 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Uniko Carson v. Brian Fischer, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Eliot L. Spitzer, New York State Attorney General
green
2 sentences2019This Court has said some courtroom closures may be "errors ... 'not significant enough to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.' " State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43 , ¶ 13, 907 N.W.2d 378 (quoting Carson v. Fischer , 421 F.3d 83 , 94 (2d Cir. 2005) ); see also Decker , at ¶ 35 (Tufte, J., dissenting) ("Whether called 'trivial' or not, such partial or temporary restrictions on public access are not properly considered the sort of 'closure' within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment or N.D. 2019This Court has said some courtroom closures may be "errors ... 'not significant enough to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.' " State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43 , ¶ 13, 907 N.W.2d 378 (quoting Carson v. Fischer , 421 F.3d 83 , 94 (2d Cir. 2005) ); see also Decker , at ¶ 35 (Tufte, J., dissenting) ("Whether called 'trivial' or not, such partial or temporary restrictions on public access are not properly considered the sort of 'closure' within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment or N.D. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.
green
2 sentences2018Press-Enterprise Co. , 464 U.S. at 510 , 104 S.Ct. 819 . [¶ 15] We have applied the four Waller factors when evaluating claimed violations of the public trial right. 2018Press-Enterprise Co. , 464 U.S. at 510 , 104 S.Ct. 819 . [¶ 15] We have applied the four Waller factors when evaluating claimed violations of the public trial right. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.