A recent United States Supreme Court decision (Eric Presley v. Georgia) affirmed the right of the defendant to have a public jury selection process and jury trial.
After a jury trial in a Georgia Superior Court, Eric Presley was convicted of cocaine trafficking. The decision was affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Presley sought a writ of certiorari (a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision), claiming his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a public jury trial were violated by the trial court when it excluded the public from the voir dire (jury selection) of prospective jurors. The United States Supreme Court granted Presley’s claim, reversing the judgment against him.
During the jury trial in question, a lone observer in the courtroom was told he was not allowed in the courtroom during jury selection and had to leave the courthouse. Upon learning the observer was Presley’s uncle, the court judge told the uncle there would not be enough room for him when prospective jurors entered the courtroom, but he would be able to come back in once the jury was selected and the trial would start. Presley’s attorney objected to the “exclusion of the public from the courtroom,” but the court refused Presley’s uncle’s presence during jury selection.
After Presley was convicted, he moved for a new trial based on the exclusion of the public (in this case, Presley’s uncle) from the jury selection. Presley also presented evidence that the prospective jurors called to court could easily fit in the courtroom with enough room for the public. However, the trial court denied the motion, stating the decision to exclude the uncle was up to the courtroom judge to decide. The judge stated he made his decision in part because he did not want family members in the courtroom mingling with potential jurors. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed this decision.
However, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment, stating, “Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials. Nothing in the record shows that the trial court could not have accommodated the public at Presley’s trial.” Presley won his case.
This case shows there is a potential for courtroom misconduct in every criminal case. It is important to have the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys of Wallin & Klarich represent you if you accused of a crime. Our attorneys have the knowledge and expertise you need if you are facing a criminal offense. Our attorneys may decide it is important to look into courtroom misconduct issues in your case. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.
