Waller v. Georgia
467 U.S. 39 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to pretrial suppression hearings, and any closure of such a hearing over the defendant's objection must satisfy a four-part test demonstrating an overriding interest.
Facts:
- Acting under court authorization, Georgia police used wiretaps to uncover a large gambling operation.
- The wiretaps captured conversations involving individuals who were indicted but not currently on trial, as well as at least one person who was not indicted.
- Based on information from the wiretaps, police executed search warrants at numerous locations, including the homes of petitioners Waller and others.
- Waller and 35 other individuals were indicted for violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and for commercial gambling.
- The state planned to introduce evidence from the wiretaps at a pretrial hearing to validate the seizures and oppose the defendants' motion to suppress.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners filed a motion in the Georgia trial court to suppress evidence gathered from wiretaps and searches.
- The State moved to close the suppression hearing to the public, citing a Georgia statute and privacy concerns.
- The trial court granted the State's motion, and the seven-day suppression hearing was closed to the public.
- Following a public jury trial, petitioners were convicted of commercial gambling and communicating gambling information.
- Petitioners appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, which affirmed the convictions, ruling that the trial court had properly balanced the defendants' rights against the privacy rights of others.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Amendment claim.
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 criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extend to a pretrial motion to suppress evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The aims of the public trial guarantee—to ensure a fair trial, encourage witnesses to come forward, and discourage perjury—are no less pressing in a hearing to suppress evidence. Suppression hearings are often as important as the trial itself and frequently involve challenges to the conduct of police and prosecutors, making public scrutiny essential. Any closure over a defendant's objection must meet the strict test established in First Amendment cases like Press-Enterprise. Here, the trial court's closure of the entire seven-day hearing was unjustified because the state's asserted interest in protecting privacy was not supported by specific findings, the court failed to consider alternatives, and the closure was far broader than necessary to protect the interest at stake.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the Sixth Amendment's public trial right to the critical pretrial stage of a suppression hearing, which was previously an open question. By adopting the stringent four-part test from the First Amendment press-access cases (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court), the Court created a unified and high standard for closing any part of a criminal proceeding. This ruling significantly enhances transparency and accountability, particularly concerning police and prosecutorial conduct, which is often the central issue in suppression hearings. The decision makes it much more difficult for courts to conduct these crucial proceedings in secret, requiring specific, on-the-record justifications for any closure.
Unlock the full brief for Waller v. Georgia