Waller test in Minnesota

2013See State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 684-85 (Minn.2007) (adopting the Waller standard).

2013See State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 684-85 (Minn.2007) (adopting the Waller standard).

2015To determine 'whether a closure is justified, we have adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s Waller test, which provides: “[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d at 201 (quoting Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 ).

2015Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d at 202 , But before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a closure even occurred.

2012Garcia v. Bertsch, 470 F.3d 748, 753 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that the Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits all apply a less stringent "substantial reason” test instead of Waller in the case of a partial courtroom closure).

2009See Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685 (citing Garcia v. Bertsch, 470 F.3d 748, 752-53 (8th Cir.2006)).

2012In reaching our holding in Lindsey , we concluded the closure in question was so trivial that it did not implicate Lindsey’s right to a public trial, thereby eliminating any need to conduct a Waller analysis. 4 Id. at 660-61.

2012In reaching our holding in Lindsey , we concluded the closure in question was so trivial that it did not implicate Lindsey’s right to a public trial, thereby eliminating any need to conduct a Waller analysis. 4 Id. at 660-61.

2016However, “before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a [Sixth Amendment] closure even occurred.” State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015).

2016However, “before we can apply the Waller test to determine if a closure is justified, we must determine whether a [Sixth Amendment] closure even occurred.” State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2015).

2012State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 685 (Minn.2007) (declining to apply the “substantial reason” test to partial closures). 1 If the actions taken by a trial court implicate the public trial right, a trial court must apply the Waller standards before excluding the public: “[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Presle

2012State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675, 685 (Minn.2007) (declining to apply the “substantial reason” test to partial closures). 1 If the actions taken by a trial court implicate the public trial right, a trial court must apply the Waller standards before excluding the public: “[T]he party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.” Presle

2012Despite this protection, our court has held that a trial court may avoid a Waller analysis when the “ ‘unjustified closure ... was too trivial to amount to a violation of the [Sixth] Amendment.’ ” State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 660 (Minn.2001) (alterations in original) (quoting Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1996)).

2012Despite this protection, our court has held that a trial court may avoid a Waller analysis when the “ ‘unjustified closure ... was too trivial to amount to a violation of the [Sixth] Amendment.’ ” State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 660 (Minn.2001) (alterations in original) (quoting Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1996)).

2011See Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 684-85 (applying the Waller standard to the exclusion of the defendant’s brother and cousin from the courtroom); State v. Cross, 771 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.App.2009) (“In Minnesota, ... the supreme court has applied the four-part Waller test to both full closures and partial closures of the courtroom.”).

2011See Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 684-85 (applying the Waller standard to the exclusion of the defendant’s brother and cousin from the courtroom); State v. Cross, 771 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn.App.2009) (“In Minnesota, ... the supreme court has applied the four-part Waller test to both full closures and partial closures of the courtroom.”).

2009See United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2003) (approving identification check and sign-in requirements that allegedly “discourage[ed] Appellants’ family members from attending the trial,” without conducting Waller analysis); Williams v. State, *883 690 N.E.2d 162, 168-69 (Ind.1997) (holding that identification check at courtroom entrance was not closure because it was not “an affirmative act specifically barring some or all members of the public from attending,” even if it discouraged entrance by “persons who feared the consequences that a potential background check would

2009See United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2003) (approving identification check and sign-in requirements that allegedly “discourage[ed] Appellants’ family members from attending the trial,” without conducting Waller analysis); Williams v. State, *883 690 N.E.2d 162, 168-69 (Ind.1997) (holding that identification check at courtroom entrance was not closure because it was not “an affirmative act specifically barring some or all members of the public from attending,” even if it discouraged entrance by “persons who feared the consequences that a potential background check would

2009State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129, 139 , 2009 WL 2382560, at *7 (Minn.2009).

2009State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129, 139 , 2009 WL 2382560, at *7 (Minn.2009).

2009See State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , 1022 (2006) (holding that identification check at courtroom entrance to enforce witness sequestration order was not closure requiring Waller analysis); see also People v. Smalls, 275 A.D.2d 645 , 713 N.Y.S.2d 179, 179 (2000) (holding that unspecified screening procedure at courtroom entrance was not closure of courtroom).

2009See State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , 1022 (2006) (holding that identification check at courtroom entrance to enforce witness sequestration order was not closure requiring Waller analysis); see also People v. Smalls, 275 A.D.2d 645 , 713 N.Y.S.2d 179, 179 (2000) (holding that unspecified screening procedure at courtroom entrance was not closure of courtroom).

2009See State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 , 842 N.E.2d 996 , 1022 (2006) (holding that identification check at courtroom entrance to enforce witness sequestration order was not closure requiring Waller analysis); see also People v. Smalls, 275 A.D.2d 645 , 713 N.Y.S.2d 179, 179 (2000) (holding that unspecified screening procedure at courtroom entrance was not closure of courtroom).