United States v. Ralph Joseph Thunder, Jr.
2006 WL 398609, 438 F.3d 866, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 4152 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial requires that before a court closes a courtroom, even for the testimony of a child victim, it must make specific, on-the-record findings that closure is essential to serve an overriding interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Facts:
- Ralph Thunder, Jr. was accused of sexually abusing three children.
- The alleged victims were his daughter, her half-sister, and his daughter's aunt.
- At the time of the trial, two of the alleged victims were twelve years old and the third was eleven.
- During the trial, the courtroom was closed to all members of the public and press for the duration of the three child victims' testimony.
- The courtroom remained open to spectators for all other parts of the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The government filed a motion in the district court (trial court) to close the courtroom during the testimony of the child victims, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(e).
- The district court granted the government's motion without holding a hearing or making any specific findings.
- Defense counsel for Ralph Thunder, Jr. objected to the closure at the time of the ruling and renewed the objection each time the courtroom was cleared.
- Ralph Thunder, Jr. was convicted on three counts of aggravated sexual abuse.
- Mr. Thunder (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the closure violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
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 closing a courtroom to the public during the testimony of child victims in a sexual abuse case, without holding a hearing or making any specific findings on the record to justify the closure, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris Sheppard Arnold
Yes, closing the courtroom under these circumstances violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The right to a public trial, while not absolute, is protected by a strong presumption of openness. To overcome this presumption, a court must satisfy the four-part test from Waller v. Georgia, which requires: 1) an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, 2) a closure no broader than necessary to protect that interest, 3) consideration of reasonable alternatives, and 4) adequate findings on the record to support the closure. Here, the district court failed to meet these requirements; it held no hearing and made no findings to justify its decision, instead simply stating it had 'no problem with closing the courtroom.' This failure to provide a specific, on-the-record justification based on a compelling interest renders the closure unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent procedural requirements that a trial court must follow before closing any part of a criminal trial to the public. It clarifies that the sensitive nature of a case involving child sexual abuse victims does not automatically create an exception to the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The ruling serves as a strong admonition to trial courts that they cannot bypass the constitutional mandate for on-the-record findings, and it solidifies the principle that any closure must be justified as a last resort, narrowly tailored, and supported by a specific overriding interest.
