In his trial for Conspiracy, Attempted Homicide and other related crimes, the Defendant, Dante Jordan, alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated when the court closed the courtroom during voir dire.
Specifically, he argued the court erred in excluding his mother and stepfather from the proceedings, after a disturbance occurred the day earlier that caused the trial court to conclude that further, similar, conduct “was a threat to the orderly administration of justice in [the] courtroom by an unmanageable public” therefore allowing for the placement of “reasonable restrictions on access to the courtroom, so long as the basic guarantees of fairness are preserved.”
After review, the Superior Court held that “the trial court was justified in excluding general members of the public from voir dire due to intimidation concerns. However, the court erred by refusing to consider the proffered reasonable alternative of permitting entry to Jordan’s family members.”
The Superior Court noted that the trial judge “could exclude Jordan’s mother and stepfather had they participated in the disturbance, presuming that appropriate findings supporting that conclusion were made.” However, no such findings were made and “the trial court did not challenge Jordan’s representation that his mother and stepfather, the only people Jordan sought to admit, were not part of the disturbance.”
As to the appropriate remedy to be applied, the Superior Court noted that a “violation of the right to a public trial constitutes a structural defect, a specific type of constitutional error warranting a new trial without any showing of prejudice.”
And, because in this case, “Jordan’s family members were excluded from jury selection after a request was made that they be allowed to attend and no reason was given by trial court for their exclusion, the trial court committed a “structural error warranting a new trial without any finding of prejudice.”
Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that Jordan’s “right to a public trial was violated when the trial court excluded his family members from voir dire.”
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. JORDAN, No. 545 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. May 29, 2019)
DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisionhs authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon Winters Strasko attorney about this or any other legal issue. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon Winters Strasko attorney.