558 U.S. 209 (2010)
Eric Presley was tried by jury in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, on a cocaine trafficking charge.1 Before jury selection began, the trial court observed a single spectator in the courtroom and directed him to leave the sixth floor entirely because prospective jurors would soon occupy the space.2 Upon learning the man was Presley's uncle, the court maintained the exclusion, stating there was insufficient room and that the uncle could return once the trial itself started after jury selection concluded.3
Presley's counsel objected to the closure and requested some accommodation for public attendance, but the trial court denied the request, explaining that the 42 prospective jurors would fill the rows and that family members could not intermingle with the panel.4 After Presley was convicted, he filed a motion for a new trial and introduced evidence at the hearing demonstrating that the courtroom could accommodate 14 jurors in the box and the remaining 28 on one side, leaving space for spectators.5 The trial court rejected the motion, asserting that seating arrangements were within its discretion to prevent any potential overhearing of comments by family members.6
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's explanation for excluding spectators during voir dire.7 The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and likewise affirmed, with two justices dissenting, after determining that the trial court had an overriding interest in preventing prejudicial remarks and that Presley bore the burden of proposing alternatives to closure.8
Whether the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the voir dire of prospective jurors?9
The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the voir dire of prospective jurors under the combined force of Press-Enterprise I and Waller.10
The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the voir dire of prospective jurors.13
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the summary disposition of the case.14 He contended that neither Waller nor Press-Enterprise I squarely resolves whether the Sixth Amendment public trial right extends to jury voir dire.15 Waller addressed a suppression hearing rather than jury selection.16
Press-Enterprise I was decided under the First Amendment and left the Sixth Amendment question open according to Justice Stevens' concurrence.17 Thomas concluded that the issue remained unresolved by precedent and that full briefing and argument were required before summary reversal.18
Whether a trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the courtroom during voir dire even when the parties do not propose any such alternatives?19
A trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the courtroom during voir dire even when the parties do not propose any such alternatives.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas also dissented on the alternatives issue.24 He argued that neither Waller nor Press-Enterprise I explicitly places on trial courts the burden of sua sponte suggesting alternatives to closure when the parties make no proffer.25 The language in those opinions does not definitively establish who must suggest alternatives.26
Thomas concluded that summary disposition was therefore inappropriate and that the Court should not declare the point settled without full consideration.27