Jordan v. Lamanna

Background

Gigi Jordan was serving an 18-year prison sentence after a New York State Supreme Court jury found her guilty of first-degree manslaughter. She had been charged with second-degree murder after her eight-year-old son died from a fatal overdose of prescription medication. Jordan presented an extreme-emotional-distress defense. The trial lasted approximately nine weeks.

On October 1, 2014, before the jury entered, the trial judge, Justice Charles H. Solomon, cleared all spectators from the courtroom for approximately 15 minutes. The closed proceeding concerned an internet post and an email that criticized rulings in the case and allegedly were connected to Jordan. The prosecutor said he was concerned about protecting a fair trial and preventing additional publicity. During the closed proceeding, the court heard arguments, considered the materials, addressed possible jury instructions, overruled Jordan’s objection to the closure, declined to impose a gag order, and sealed the minutes and exhibits. The courtroom was reopened the same day, and the materials were later unsealed that day.

State-court proceedings

After the jury found Jordan not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of first-degree manslaughter, Jordan moved to set aside the verdict. Justice Solomon denied the motion. He concluded that the closed proceeding was not the type of trial proceeding covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Waller v. Georgia. He alternatively ruled that, even if the closure was improper, it was too brief and insignificant to require setting aside the verdict.

The New York Appellate Division affirmed Jordan’s conviction. It held that the courtroom discussion was equivalent to a sidebar, robing-room, or chambers conference and that the public-trial right therefore did not apply. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied Jordan’s request for review.

Federal habeas petition

Jordan sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the Appellate Division unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it upheld the courtroom closure. The District Attorney opposed the petition, arguing that the proceeding was an ancillary discussion similar to a chambers conference, that no clearly established Supreme Court decision required public access to this particular discussion, and that any error was trivial.

The court found that Jordan had properly presented her federal claim to the state courts and that the petition was timely. Because the Appellate Division had decided the constitutional claim on its merits, the court applied the highly deferential review required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Under that standard, federal relief was available if the state decision unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law.

Sixth Amendment public-trial right

The Sixth Amendment generally gives a criminal defendant the right to a public trial. Under Waller and related Supreme Court decisions, a court seeking to close a criminal proceeding must identify an overriding interest likely to be harmed, make the closure no broader than necessary, consider reasonable alternatives, and make adequate findings supporting the closure. The public-trial right is not violated by every exclusion of the public, and a genuinely trivial closure may not require relief.

Judge Cave concluded that the Appellate Division unreasonably applied this law. She determined that the proceeding’s substance, rather than its label, controlled. The proceeding occurred from the bench in the courtroom, involved accusations concerning Jordan and her defense team, included legal arguments, involved materials marked as exhibits, and led to rulings affecting the trial. It was therefore not merely a private chambers or sidebar conference.

The court also found that none of the four Waller requirements was met. Before closing the courtroom, Justice Solomon did not identify an overriding interest, consider whether a complete closure was necessary, consider alternatives, or make specific findings. Instead, the courtroom was completely cleared based primarily on the prosecutor’s representations. The later unsealing of the minutes and exhibits did not substitute for public access during the proceeding itself.

Judge Cave further ruled that the closure was not trivial. Although it lasted only about 15 minutes, it was deliberate, completely excluded the public from a courtroom that had been attended by spectators and the press, involved arguments and rulings, and occurred while Jordan was present several days before she testified. The court therefore found a violation of Jordan’s Sixth Amendment public-trial right.

Remedy and disposition

The court explained that a public-trial violation does not automatically require a new trial in every case; sometimes repeating the affected proceeding in public may be sufficient. Here, however, Judge Cave concluded that the closure was deliberate, the violation was not trivial, and a new trial was the appropriate remedy.

The court GRANTED Jordan’s petition. It ordered Respondent to release Jordan from custody unless the District Attorney informs the court within the next 90 days of its decision to retry her. The clerk was directed to close the federal case. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability was necessary for purposes of appeal.