UNITED STATES of America v. Juan Ramon HERNANDEZ, et al.
608 F.2d 741 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is not absolute and may be temporarily limited by excluding the public from the courtroom during a witness's testimony if there is a demonstrated need to protect the witness from physical harm or harassment, a finding which a court may base on a sworn affidavit.
Facts:
- A government informant, Smith, was contacted by Jorge Mejia to assist in locating a buyer for narcotics.
- Smith arranged for the sale of a large quantity of heroin to undercover Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents.
- As part of the arrangement, Smith obtained a sample of the heroin and turned it over to law enforcement officers for testing.
- Juan Ramon Hernandez, Jesus Antonio Gastelum, Jorge Mejia, Javier Gomez, and another man were arrested at the scene of the arranged sale after handing the agents a bag containing three-and-one-half pounds of heroin.
- Following the arrests, Smith and his wife received numerous threatening phone calls, including one in which an anonymous caller told Mrs. Smith she 'might not remain Mrs. Smith for much longer.'
- Smith also reported to law enforcement that he had learned a 'contract' had been put out on his life.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Ramon Hernandez and three co-defendants were charged in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and related offenses.
- Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion seeking the address of the key government informant, which the district court denied based on a government affidavit detailing threats against him.
- At the start of the informant's testimony, the trial court granted the government's motion to exclude all spectators from the courtroom over the defendants' objection.
- After the informant's direct examination, the court held a hearing and ordered the informant to disclose his address, but denied the defendants' subsequent motion for a two-week continuance.
- A jury convicted all four appellants on charges related to the heroin distribution scheme.
- The convicted defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a limited exclusion of the public from a courtroom during the testimony of a government informant violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when the exclusion is based on a sworn affidavit detailing credible threats against the informant and their family?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ely
No, a limited exclusion of the public during an informant's testimony does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when the court has a reasonable basis to conclude the witness is in physical danger. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a public trial is a fundamental right but is not absolute. An accommodation must be made between the accused's right and societal interests that might justify closing the courtroom, such as protecting a witness from threatened harm. Here, the government submitted a sworn affidavit from a DEA agent detailing specific threats against the informant, Smith, and his family. This affidavit provided a sufficient factual basis for the district court to conclude that Smith feared for his safety. The exclusionary order was appropriately limited in scope, applying only to Smith's direct testimony, and the courtroom was reopened for all subsequent proceedings, including his cross-examination. While an evidentiary hearing would have been the 'better course,' it was not reversible error for the court to rely on the sworn affidavit in these circumstances to justify the temporary closure.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for temporarily closing a courtroom to protect a witness, affirming that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is not absolute. The case establishes that this right can be outweighed by a demonstrated threat to a witness's safety. Significantly, it holds that a trial court can make this determination based on a credible sworn affidavit without necessarily conducting a full evidentiary hearing, although a hearing is preferred. This precedent grants trial judges discretion in balancing a defendant's constitutional rights against the practical need for witness protection, thereby influencing how courts handle testimony from vulnerable individuals like informants in future criminal trials.
Unlock the full brief for UNITED STATES of America v. Juan Ramon HERNANDEZ, et al.