Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog
Sometimes, the key to a successful acquittal (or, in some matters, a successful reversal of a conviction) may have nothing to do with the facts of your case or the law of the crime charged. Your assault case may come down to things wholly unrelated to who struck whom with what and have no connection to the law of assault in Maryland. Many times, these issues relate to whether the police, the state, or the court violated your constitutional rights. Protecting your constitutional rights is one of the essential things a defense attorney can do for you when you are suspected or accused of a crime. So, whether you are being questioned or being tried, make sure you have an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer working for you.
Often, these violations relate to the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. As a Silver Spring robbery case shows, your Sixth Amendment rights may also be vital to a successful appeal.
The Silver Spring case involved two men who allegedly robbed D.B. at gunpoint. The state tried both robbers together. As the trial began in Montgomery County in 2014, the judge decided to close the courtroom during the jury selection process. The judge made this decision “due to space limitations,” although the lawyers for both accused men stated their opposition to the closure.
The jury eventually found both men guilty.
Although the second accused robber, N.W., made many arguments about why the appellate court should reverse his conviction, most failed. One argument, however, succeeded… and that one was enough to earn N.W. a new trial.
The trial judge, when deciding to close the courtroom to spectators during the entirety of the jury selection process, reasoned that “asking spectators to wait outside while [the parties] select a jury and go through the voir dire” would not violate “anybody’s right.” The Appellate Court said this was incorrect and that the violation of the man’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was severe enough to warrant throwing out N.W.’s conviction.
No ‘Magic’ Words Required for an Objection
In ruling in favor of the accused man, the Appellate Court made several key statements. One, it reminded readers that the law imposes no “magic” words on a party who seeks to object to a judge’s ruling from the bench. (As a quick bit of background knowledge, a party generally can only argue on appeal issues that they objected to at trial.)
Lodging an objection sufficiently does not require the party (or attorney) to say specifically “I object” or even words to that effect. The party or the lawyer must merely say enough to demonstrate that they “protest… a particular thing.” In N.W.’s case, when the other defendant’s attorney objected to closing the courtroom and N.W.’s lawyer later said, “I would echo that,” N.W.’s counsel made a valid objection.
3 Factors in 6th Amendment Violations
Second, the Appellate Court decided that this kind of closure was not a minor error. When analyzing these questions, the law requires courts to consider three central elements: “(1) the length of the closure; (2) the significance of the proceedings that took place while the courtroom was closed; and (3) … whether it was a total or partial closure.”
In the past, a Maryland court has ruled that closing a courtroom for an entire morning of jury selection was not a minor matter. Another court concluded that excluding the accused’s family from the court during 3.5 hours of voir dire was also not a minor imposition. In N.W.’s case, “jury selection spanned the majority of a five-hour morning session.” This was more than just an hour or two, and therefore long enough to be considered significant.
What the potential spectators missed was also significant. In N.W.’s case, the judge held voir dire in open court unless a specific potential juror asked to speak to the judge more privately near the bench. That meant, according to the court, that spectators could hear almost everything that was said, making the significance of what they missed more than a minor loss.
Finally, the closure in this case was total, not partial. The judge did not simply exclude a few people. The judge excluded everyone for the morning session when jury selection occurred. All of these things weighed in favor of deeming the Sixth Amendment violation to be something substantial enough to warrant a new trial.
Whatever challenges your criminal case presents — whether they relate to your constitutional rights or other protections that the law provides — a knowledgeable legal advocate can help you ensure you get the benefit of all of those protections. The experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC, have helped countless Maryland citizens ensure that their criminal processes are fair and comply with the Constitution’s guarantees for each person. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to find out how we can help you.