7 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstronggreen2 sentences2024See Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 13 (“[I]t appears no Arizona court has applied the Waller test in any context . . . .”). 2024See Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 13 (“[I]t appears no Arizona court has applied the Waller test in any context . . . .”). | 4 | 4 |
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2024The elements of the Waller test are conjunctive; all of them must be satisfied. 467 U.S. at 48 ; Presley, 558 U.S. at 213-16 . ¶12 S.K. testified on the second day of trial. 2024The elements of the Waller test are conjunctive; all of them must be satisfied. 467 U.S. at 48 ; Presley, 558 U.S. at 213-16 . ¶12 S.K. testified on the second day of trial. | 3 | 4 |
United States v. George Don Galloway, A/K/A Saul D. Davisgreen2 sentences2024Tucker did not address a situation like this one, where the record is inadequate to determine whether the closure might have been justified upon a proper analysis of the three substantive elements of the Waller inquiry. ¶60 Under similar circumstances, where a public trial violation had occurred based on a trial court’s failure to make findings on the record, the Tenth Circuit relied on Waller and concluded that “the appropriate course is to remand the case . . . with directions to supplement the record with the facts and reasoning upon which the partial closure of the courtroom was based.” Ga 2024Tucker did not address a situation like this one, where the record is inadequate to determine whether the closure might have been justified upon a proper analysis of the three substantive elements of the Waller inquiry. ¶60 Under similar circumstances, where a public trial violation had occurred based on a trial court’s failure to make findings on the record, the Tenth Circuit relied on Waller and concluded that “the appropriate course is to remand the case . . . with directions to supplement the record with the facts and reasoning upon which the partial closure of the courtroom was based.” Ga | 1 | 1 |
Stackhouse v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2024Stackhouse v. People, 386 P.3d 440, 441, ¶ 1 (Colo. 2015). 2024Stackhouse v. People, 386 P.3d 440, 441, ¶ 1 (Colo. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ringgreen2 sentences2016See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (establishing test for determining whether closure of criminal proceeding is constitutional); State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 10 , 290 P.3d 1248, 1255 (App. 2012) (applying Waller test to partial courtroom closure in Arizona). ¶ 7 Hancock argues the exclusion of his family members from the courtroom “constituted an abuse of the subpoena [power] and denied [him] a public trial.” He acknowledges raising this argument for the first time on appeal, but he asserts denial of a public trial constitutes structural error, 2016See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (establishing test for determining whether closure of criminal proceeding is constitutional); State v. Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 10 , 290 P.3d 1248, 1255 (App. 2012) (applying Waller test to partial courtroom closure in Arizona). ¶ 7 Hancock argues the exclusion of his family members from the courtroom “constituted an abuse of the subpoena [power] and denied [him] a public trial.” He acknowledges raising this argument for the first time on appeal, but he asserts denial of a public trial constitutes structural error, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petrakgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260, ¶ 28 , 8 P.3d 1174, 1182 (App.2000). ¶35 At trial, Deputy Hernandez testified Waller said he had gone to J.C.’s residence because “he wanted the music turned down,” and had taken the handgun with him “because he did not believe [J.C.] was going to listen to him.” J.C. testified that after Waller asked for the music to be turned down, Waller hit him in the face, knocking off his ball cap, and pushed a gun “in[to his] gut.” J.C.’s testimony was corroborated by his son, who testified he saw Waller “stick something in [his] dad’s gut.” Another neighbor who witne 2014See State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260, ¶ 28 , 8 P.3d 1174, 1182 (App.2000). ¶35 At trial, Deputy Hernandez testified Waller said he had gone to J.C.’s residence because “he wanted the music turned down,” and had taken the handgun with him “because he did not believe [J.C.] was going to listen to him.” J.C. testified that after Waller asked for the music to be turned down, Waller hit him in the face, knocking off his ball cap, and pushed a gun “in[to his] gut.” J.C.’s testimony was corroborated by his son, who testified he saw Waller “stick something in [his] dad’s gut.” Another neighbor who witne | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mahkukgreen2 sentences2012The court found the trial court had “abused its discretion in failing to examine [the witness] for itself, in camera if necessary, in order to access [sic ] his credibility and to determine the nature, extent, and impact of any attempts to intimidate [him] and prevent or alter his testimony.” Id. at 838-39; accord, e.g., Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685 (findings inadequate when trial court excluded alleged gang members from courtroom based on prosecutor’s assertion without taking evidence from any witness regarding alleged intimidation). ¶ 21 These cases illustrate the level of specificity required 2012The court found the trial court had “abused its discretion in failing to examine [the witness] for itself, in camera if necessary, in order to access [sic ] his credibility and to determine the nature, extent, and impact of any attempts to intimidate [him] and prevent or alter his testimony.” Id. at 838-39; accord, e.g., Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685 (findings inadequate when trial court excluded alleged gang members from courtroom based on prosecutor’s assertion without taking evidence from any witness regarding alleged intimidation). ¶ 21 These cases illustrate the level of specificity required | 1 | 1 |
Peter Vidal v. Joseph Williams, Superintendent of Fulton Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). 2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). | 1 | 1 |
Armando Guzman v. Charles Scully, Superintendent of Greenhaven Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). 2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bushgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Washington, 142 Ohio App.3d 268 , 755 N.E.2d 422, 426 (2001) (trial court’s expression it would “rather be safe than sorry” insufficient to justify closure under Waller test); cf. Bush, 148 Ariz. at 331 , 714 P.2d at 824 (finding extensive record of spectator misconduct and concluding “the offending *135 spectators should have been removed from the courtroom”) (emphasis added). ¶ 17 With respect to the third part of the Waller test, the record shows the trial court considered no alternatives to the closure it ordered, even though it appears alternatives were available that might h 2012See State v. Washington, 142 Ohio App.3d 268 , 755 N.E.2d 422, 426 (2001) (trial court’s expression it would “rather be safe than sorry” insufficient to justify closure under Waller test); cf. Bush, 148 Ariz. at 331 , 714 P.2d at 824 (finding extensive record of spectator misconduct and concluding “the offending *135 spectators should have been removed from the courtroom”) (emphasis added). ¶ 17 With respect to the third part of the Waller test, the record shows the trial court considered no alternatives to the closure it ordered, even though it appears alternatives were available that might h | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2012State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai'i 181 , 981 P.2d 1127, 1137 (1999). 2012State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai'i 181 , 981 P.2d 1127, 1137 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Gerald English v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). 2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). | 1 | 1 |
Salih Sevencan v. Victor Herbert, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). 2012See Sevencan v. Herbert, 342 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2002) (Waller test only clearly established law for courtroom closures); see also, e.g., English v. Artuz, 164 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir.1998) (applying Waller to exclusion of defendant’s family); Guzman v. Scully, 80 F.3d 772, 775 (2d Cir.1996) (defendant’s friends and family); Vidal v. Williams, 31 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir.1994) (all members of public for portion of trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Washington, 142 Ohio App.3d 268 , 755 N.E.2d 422, 426 (2001) (trial court’s expression it would “rather be safe than sorry” insufficient to justify closure under Waller test); cf. Bush, 148 Ariz. at 331 , 714 P.2d at 824 (finding extensive record of spectator misconduct and concluding “the offending *135 spectators should have been removed from the courtroom”) (emphasis added). ¶ 17 With respect to the third part of the Waller test, the record shows the trial court considered no alternatives to the closure it ordered, even though it appears alternatives were available that might h 2012See State v. Washington, 142 Ohio App.3d 268 , 755 N.E.2d 422, 426 (2001) (trial court’s expression it would “rather be safe than sorry” insufficient to justify closure under Waller test); cf. Bush, 148 Ariz. at 331 , 714 P.2d at 824 (finding extensive record of spectator misconduct and concluding “the offending *135 spectators should have been removed from the courtroom”) (emphasis added). ¶ 17 With respect to the third part of the Waller test, the record shows the trial court considered no alternatives to the closure it ordered, even though it appears alternatives were available that might h | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Penngreen2 sentences2012The court found the trial court had “abused its discretion in failing to examine [the witness] for itself, in camera if necessary, in order to access [sic ] his credibility and to determine the nature, extent, and impact of any attempts to intimidate [him] and prevent or alter his testimony.” Id. at 838-39; accord, e.g., Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685 (findings inadequate when trial court excluded alleged gang members from courtroom based on prosecutor’s assertion without taking evidence from any witness regarding alleged intimidation). ¶ 21 These cases illustrate the level of specificity required 2012The court found the trial court had “abused its discretion in failing to examine [the witness] for itself, in camera if necessary, in order to access [sic ] his credibility and to determine the nature, extent, and impact of any attempts to intimidate [him] and prevent or alter his testimony.” Id. at 838-39; accord, e.g., Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 685 (findings inadequate when trial court excluded alleged gang members from courtroom based on prosecutor’s assertion without taking evidence from any witness regarding alleged intimidation). ¶ 21 These cases illustrate the level of specificity required | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Presley v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2024The elements of the Waller test are conjunctive; all of them must be satisfied. 467 U.S. at 48 ; Presley, 558 U.S. at 213-16 . ¶12 S.K. testified on the second day of trial. 2024The elements of the Waller test are conjunctive; all of them must be satisfied. 467 U.S. at 48 ; Presley, 558 U.S. at 213-16 . ¶12 S.K. testified on the second day of trial. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.
green
2 sentences2024Instead, it directed the trial court to make proper findings, consider reasonable alternatives to closure, and “seal only such parts of the transcript as necessary to preserve the anonymity of the individuals sought to be protected.” Id. ¶57 Thus, when a trial court has made insufficient findings to allow for appellate review as required by the fourth element of the Waller test, the “appropriate remedy” is not necessarily a new trial but a remand to the court for appropriate findings. 2024Instead, it directed the trial court to make proper findings, consider reasonable alternatives to closure, and “seal only such parts of the transcript as necessary to preserve the anonymity of the individuals sought to be protected.” Id. ¶57 Thus, when a trial court has made insufficient findings to allow for appellate review as required by the fourth element of the Waller test, the “appropriate remedy” is not necessarily a new trial but a remand to the court for appropriate findings. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Oliver
green
2 sentences2016Hancock’s argument on appeal appearing to be little more than an afterthought, we find his ease distinguishable from those on which he relies. ¶ 16 Finally, although we have previously noted the “special concern for accommodating the attendance at trial of an accused’s family members,” Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 15 , 290 P.3d at 1257 , citing Oliver, 333 U.S. at 271 -72 & 272 n.29, 68 S.Ct. 499 , neither Oliver nor Tucker involved a situation in which a defendant’s family members were potential witnesses at trial. 2016Hancock’s argument on appeal appearing to be little more than an afterthought, we find his ease distinguishable from those on which he relies. ¶ 16 Finally, although we have previously noted the “special concern for accommodating the attendance at trial of an accused’s family members,” Tucker, 231 Ariz. 125, ¶ 15 , 290 P.3d at 1257 , citing Oliver, 333 U.S. at 271 -72 & 272 n.29, 68 S.Ct. 499 , neither Oliver nor Tucker involved a situation in which a defendant’s family members were potential witnesses at trial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Levine v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Although we encourage trial courts to be mindful of abuses of the subpoena power, we do not find what happened here to be an “anomalous situation” triggering the inquiry contemplated in Tharp . ¶ 16 Hancock nevertheless maintains “the trial court should have recognized that the [prosecutor’s] move was substantial enough to constitute a partial closing of the proceedings, and should have proceeded with a Waller hearing to determine the propriety of the partial closing.” With appropriate regard for the public nature of judicial proceedings, however, we are hesitant to give credence to such a cla 2016Although we encourage trial courts to be mindful of abuses of the subpoena power, we do not find what happened here to be an “anomalous situation” triggering the inquiry contemplated in Tharp . ¶ 16 Hancock nevertheless maintains “the trial court should have recognized that the [prosecutor’s] move was substantial enough to constitute a partial closing of the proceedings, and should have proceeded with a Waller hearing to determine the propriety of the partial closing.” With appropriate regard for the public nature of judicial proceedings, however, we are hesitant to give credence to such a cla | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2014The trial court granted the hearing but ultimately denied Waller’s motion, finding that showing the victim two photos was not unduly suggestive and noting J.C. “had plenty of opportunity to observe [Waller].” ¶ 20 We agree with the state that “[J.C.’s] identification of Waller was reliable under the totality of the circumstances.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 (whether pretrial identification reliable based on “totality of the circumstances”). 2014The trial court granted the hearing but ultimately denied Waller’s motion, finding that showing the victim two photos was not unduly suggestive and noting J.C. “had plenty of opportunity to observe [Waller].” ¶ 20 We agree with the state that “[J.C.’s] identification of Waller was reliable under the totality of the circumstances.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 (whether pretrial identification reliable based on “totality of the circumstances”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charley
green
2 sentences2012Although an evidentiary hearing may not always be necessary, see Sherlock, 962 F.2d at 1359 , a court cannot neglect to make findings altogether or base its closure order only on broad or general observations. 2012Although an evidentiary hearing may not always be necessary, see Sherlock, 962 F.2d at 1359 , a court cannot neglect to make findings altogether or base its closure order only on broad or general observations. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.