2010 – 2020 Jasper Group. The State contends that Klem did not preserve this issue for review, arguing that his "`objection' to the partial closure of the Courtroom was not a proper, *800 valid objection" because "for there to be a valid objection giving rise to error, there must be grounds asserted therefor."
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. at 47, 104 S. Ct. at 2216, 81 L. Ed.
I don't have any grounds to object however. A new trial should be required only if, after a hearing on remand, a newly assigned judge from outside the district in which the trial was held, concludes that with the exception of one representative of the media, the public, including relatives and friends of the defendant, may not be properly excluded during Lyle's testimony. "If a criminal defendant thinks a trial court is "about to deprive him of a federal constitutional right there is every reason for his following state procedure in making known his objection." All Rights Reserved. "Klem contends that the trial court's exclusion of the public during the child's testimony deprived him of his right to a public trial under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. State v. Iverson, Klem was in the courtroom when the bench conference in issue occurred. products Casegoods: Collections Casegoods: Programs Casegoods: Headboards Casegoods: Tables Casegoods: Desks Casegoods: Storage Casegoods: Vanities Casegoods: Entry Tradeshows Portfolio Customer List. Therefore, the surprise to the defendant from the State's untimely and unsupported motion to close the trial cannot be overestimated.Under these circumstances, namely, an untimely, unsupported motion to close, we hold that Klem was not required to respond with any greater specificity than he did, and that his objection was sufficient to register his resistance to the motion.
Full range of componentry available. 2d at 35.
Klem argues that the other challenged potential juror, when asked "if she could put aside completely and ignore what she had heard from other sources and rely only on what she had heard at the trial," replied that she was "not sure," that she "would try" to rely only on the evidence presented in court, and that she felt that Klem "had to prove" something.While the potential jurors' responses relied upon by Klem were somewhat equivocal responses to questions put to them by defense counsel, their responses to questions *810 put to them by the trial court were more definite. Gov. [6] We note that even what would otherwise be incompetent evidence may be admissible "when the adversary has opened the door." Officials at the scene say the accident left two teenagers with minor injuries consisting of lacerations. We reverse and remand for a new trial.The victim of the offenses was Klem's adopted son. This was the second trial. Without a hearing, there was no reasonable opportunity for Klem to make such a request. In Waller, the entire seven-day suppression hearing was closed, although less than 2½ hours were devoted to playing tapes of intercepted telephone conversations. [5] We therefore believe that the appropriate relief is a new trial.If, on remand, the State again wishes to have the general public excluded during the victim's testimony, it may again seek closure. Thus, some people had been excluded from the courtroom before the State's request to clear the courtroom. Of several issues Klem has raised on appeal, we need consider only one:Just before the child victim testified, the State asked that the courtroom be cleared. Standards for Criminal Justice p. 15.59 (2d ed. General's Office, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Jay Brovold. While Klem did offer to prove that the "polygraph is widely and commonly accepted in the law enforcement community" and offered to prove that "the polygraph examination is commonly accepted in the business employment community," he did not offer to prove that polygraph examinations are accepted as reliable in the scientific community. [1] One count was for engaging in a sexual act with a person less than fifteen years old; the other count was for engaging in sexual contact with a person less than fifteen years old. There has been no showing as to why Klem did not accompany his attorney to the bench for bench conferences. The first witness to testify the next day of trial was Earl. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court agreed with the State that safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is a compelling interest.In Waller, the United States Supreme Court held that "under the Sixth Amendment any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the tests set out in Press-Enterprise and its predecessors." 2d 112 (1975)] as well as fulfill such objectives of a public trial as assuring testimonial trustworthiness. [3] The trial court had previously sequestered the witnesses who were going to testify.
An 11-year-old boy testifying about sexual acts allegedly committed upon him by his adoptive father presents a much more compelling case for protection than indicted adult participants in telephone conversations intercepted by wiretaps in a gambling investigation.Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Waller specifically held that "any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the tests set out in Press-Enterprise and its predecessors." The record does not indicate that the court remained closed during this testimony, or during the testimony of subsequent witnesses. A hearing and findings encourage the careful consideration warranted by a motion to close a trial.Where a defendant has objected to the exclusion of the public, compliance with the closure requirements enunciated in Waller v. Georgia, supra, is necessary and noncompliance is reversible error.