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
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
Not to long ago I ran into a very serious legal issue for the first time in my life, I'm closing in on 60. Needless to say I was unsure of the process. I was fortunate that a friend recommended Fred. Fred handled my case in a professional and courteous manner yet was very down to earth and straight forward. It took nearly 9 month to resolve and during that time Fred was always available to answer questions, explain the process and most of all alleviate my stress. I feel we got the best possible outcome and I would highly recommend Fred to anyone facing a legal/criminal matter
Manny P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great that Fred posts DUI for Monmouth County!
David F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I recently utilized his exceptional services and would highly recommend them to anyone seeking legal advice.
Mark A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Fred Sisto is really an amazing attorney! Professional, knowledgeable, and effective. He made me feel comfortable in knowing he was working countless hours on my case to get me the best possible outcome. Mr. Sisto was very responsive and kept me updated with all court proceedings/updates. I am thankful to have had him represent me. I will be recommending Mr. Sisto & his firm to anyone in need. Thanks again ! Much Appreciated
Javier B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Called back within 10 minutes,very easy to talk to. Not judgmental at all. I am hopeful about the outcome.
Colleen H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation .
Raumelis R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto was not only a knowledgeable and excellent lawyer, he was compassionate and understanding during this difficult time. I found Mr. Sisto to always be available and he services were affordable and effective. You will not find a better lawyer.
Joseph S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Always up to date on with his services.
Anthony L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
He is the best professional to have on your side taking care of your interests. Your in the best of hands.
Stuart C