Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Before selecting a jury in D's trial, the trial court noticed a lone courtroom observer. The court explained that prospective jurors were about to enter and instructed the man that he was not allowed in the courtroom and had to leave that floor of the courthouse entirely. The court then questioned the man and learned he was D's uncle. D's counsel objected to ''the exclusion of the public from the courtroom,'' but the court explained, 'there just isn't space for them to sit in the audience.'' D's counsel requested ''some accommodation.'' The court explained: ''Well, the uncle can certainly come back in once the trial starts. There's no, really no need for the uncle to be present during jury selection. . . . We have 42 jurors coming up. Each of those rows will be occupied by jurors. And his uncle cannot sit and intermingle with members of the jury panel. But, when the trial starts, the opening statements and other matters, he can certainly come back into the courtroom.'' D was convicted. He moved for a new trial based on the exclusion of the public from the juror voir dire. D presented evidence showing that 14 prospective jurors could have fit in the jury box and the remaining 28 could have fit entirely on one side of the courtroom, leaving adequate room for the public. The trial court denied the motion. The judge claimed it was a matter totally within his discretion. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding 'there was no abuse of discretion here when the trial court explained the need to exclude spectators at the voir dire stage of the proceedings and when members of the public were invited to return afterward.' The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. It found that 'the trial court certainly had an overriding interest in ensuring that potential jurors heard no inherently prejudicial remarks from observers during voir dire.' It rejected D's argument that the trial court was required to consider alternatives to closing the courtroom. When no alternatives are offered, it concluded, 'there is no abuse of discretion in the court's failure to sua sponte advance its own alternatives.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.