THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. LUIS A. RAMOS, APPELLANT.
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT AYALA, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 490, 685 N.E.2d 492, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739 (1997).
July 1, 1997
1 No. 139 (1997 NY Int. 131)
2 No. 152 SSM 11
Decided July 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 139:
Robert Budner, for appellant.
Marc Frazier Scholl, for respondent.
SSM 11:
Submitted by Judah Maltz, for appellant.
Submitted by Nicole Beder, for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Typically, in "buy-and-bust" cases, an undercover officer purchases a
small quantity of narcotics from the defendant and a second officer
thereafter makes the arrest. Where the People show that open-court
testimony by the undercover officer during defendant's trial would
jeopardize the undercover's safety and effectiveness, is it proper for
the trial judge to close the courtroom during the testimony of that
witness?
While we have already answered that question in the affirmative in
People v Martinez (82 NY2d 436), these appeals present two related
questions. First, were the factual showings of potential harm to
active undercover witnesses sufficient? Second, assuming sufficient
factual showings were made, did the trial courts err in failing to
consider, on their own and on the record, possible alternatives that
were less restrictive than courtroom closure during the witnesses'
testimony? Concluding that both record and constitutional requirements
were satisfied here, we affirm the Appellate Division orders upholding
the convictions.
Facts
People v Ramos
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT AYALA, APPELLANT.
No. 152 SSM 11 Decided July 1,
Typically, in "buy-and-bust" cases, an undercover officer purchases a small quantity of
Where the People show that open-court testimony by the undercover officer during defendant's
The court held a pretrial Hinton hearing (31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911) to determine
The officer had, in the past, seen former "buy" subjects outside and around the courthouse,
The trial court noted that the facts concerning the two officers were very similar--the
Citing People v Martinez, however, the court refused to order closure based on those facts
31 NY2d at 73-74, 75, supra; see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d at 441, supra).
In Waller v Georgia, involving a suppression hearing in a gambling case, the United States
"he party seeking to close the (proceeding) must advance an overriding interest that is
Defendants here urge that the People failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of prejudice
The Supreme Court has made clear that the proponent of closure must establish a "substantial
Finally, their efforts to conceal their identities upon entering the courthouse bolstered the
Waller requires the trial court to "consider reasonable alternatives to closing the
Waller derived from the standards articulated 13 years ago by the Supreme Court in
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
