Valdez v. United States

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Filed: Nov. 8, 2024

Background: A trial court in the District of Columbia used a “husher” to prevent the public from hearing any of the answers that prospective jurors gave to questions posed to them during jury selection in a criminal case, without making any findings or any independent determination that such closure was necessary. 

On appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the panel declined to reach the issue of the partial court closure, noting that it was “unnecessary” to address the issue in light of an earlier panel decision in Blades v. United States. In that case, a divided panel held that the use of a white noise machine to prevent the public from hearing answers given during jury selection, without any on-the-record findings in support of that practice, did not constitute a partial court closure, but was, instead, an alternative to closure.

The defendant, Benito Valdez, filed a petition asking the full bench of the Court of Appeals to hear the matter concerning the right to a public trial.

Our Position: The Reporters Committee, joined by 21 media organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the full Court of Appeals to reconsider the conclusion reached by the divided panel in Blades. 

• The First Amendment creates a strong presumption of public access to all phases of a criminal trial, including jury selection.

• The news media frequently acts as a surrogate for the public by attending and reporting on criminal proceedings.

• The use of a husher is permissible only if First Amendment requirements are satisfied.

• The First Amendment presumption of access was not overcome here.

From the Brief: “For the right to attend judicial proceedings to be meaningful, the public must be able to see and hear what is going on during those proceedings.”