Excluding the Public From Jury Selection (Part 3)

by | Oct 29, 2017 | Blog, Criminal Law, Judge and Jury, Legal Procedures, Monmouth County, Ocean County

criminal lawThe fact that the public-trial right is subject to exceptions suggests that not every public-trial violation results in fundamental unfairness. Indeed, the Court has said that a public-trial violation is structural because of the “difficulty of assessing the effect of the error.”

This portion of the holding sends a clear message to judges and prosecutors that denying the public access to the courtroom, a hallmark of our democracy and justice system, can be disregarded without fear of a subsequent conviction being reversed. Thus, there is no meaningful deterrent for violations of this time-honored right which applies to defendants and the public. The rights of the public should not be disregarded just because the proceeding might still be considered fair from the defendant’s standpoint.

The public-trial right also furthers interests other than protecting the defendant against unjust conviction, including the rights of the press and of the public at large. Thus, an unlawful closure could take place and yet the trial will still be fundamentally fair from the defendant’s standpoint.

The proper remedy for addressing the violation of the right to a public trial depends on when the objection was raised. If an objection is made at trial and the issue is raised on direct appeal, the defendant generally is entitled to “automatic reversal” regardless of the error’s actual “effect on the outcome.” If, however, the defendant does not preserve a structural error on direct review but raises it later in the context of an ineffective-assistance claim, the defendant generally bears the burden to show deficient performance and that the attorney’s error “prejudiced the defense.” To demonstrate prejudice in most cases, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different” but for attorney error. For the analytical purposes of this case, the Court will assume, as petitioner has requested, that even if there is no showing of a reasonable probability of a different outcome, relief still must be granted if the defendant shows that attorney errors rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Especially given the situations we had to work under right now with COVID-19, I am glad to have had Fred Sisto represent me. The outcome was much better than anticipated, and he always ensured to maintain proper communication, including not going any further until you 100% understood what's going on, and made a point to keep me updated as much as possible with any of the incoming changes due to quarantine (which was confusing for me at first). Always has your best interests in mind, and an all-around great attorney and person.
Mel C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you very much for your information on DUI check points. It is a great asset to the community . 5 stars for sure!
James P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred always publishes where local DWI Checkpoints are going to be! He is also a very prominent Attorney in the Ocean County areas of Point Pleasent and Now a new Brick office!
Michael K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Realmente es un gran abogado, me ayudo muchísimo en todo este proceso y sobre todo que habla español que es una de las cosas importantes para mi. Por que lo hizo mas entendible y facil cada una de las cosas que tenía que hacer y su amabilidad y paciencia para poder explicarme qué tenía que hacer. Además que mi caso fue un éxito gracias a él ya cada uno de sus conocimientos y a su apoyo en todo momento. Lo recomiendo 100%.
Luis A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was great and very reasonable. He was extremely easy to get ahold of or very quick to return my calls. I was able to get my charge dropped altogether. I highly recommend Fred!
Jasmine C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was very professional, competent, and a pleasure to deal with I cant thank him enough I highly recommend his services
Mildred T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Recently I encountered some legal matters in the state of New Jersey during my visit and it would have became serious if it was not taken care of. Mr. Sisto and I discussed the case through the phone and exchanged documents through email. Since I was unable to travel back and forth due to restricted time, I have asked Mr. Sisto to handle the case on my behalf. I was very pleased with the result and would recommend Mr. Sisto for any legal matters.
Nam N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Exquisite business ethic couldn't ask for a better service from a lawyer superior job def recommend to friends family and even strangers
Lukas A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is fast, attentive and excels at what he does. He provides reasonable and professional advice when your are dealing with complex and stressful legal situations. He is straight to the point and does not wast time. I would use him again and definitely recommend.
1093Nj