Call us now:
The right to a public trial is one of the most fundamental protections in the American justice system. It’s designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. But what happens when that right collides with another powerful interest—like protecting a child victim from trauma?
A recent Florida appellate decision answers that question clearly: the right to a public trial is not absolute. In certain circumstances, courts can limit who is allowed in the courtroom—and still comply with the Constitution. For the full case see Cordon v State 3rd DCA.
Limited Closure During Child Victim Testimony
In this case, the defendant was convicted of sexual activity involving a minor. During trial, the victim—his stepdaughter—became visibly distraught when she saw her younger half-sister (the defendant’s biological daughter) sitting in the courtroom. The victim told the court she could not testify effectively if her sister remained present and did not want her exposed to the graphic details of the abuse.
Rather than closing the entire courtroom, the trial judge made a narrow, targeted decision:
- The minor sibling was temporarily excluded
- Only during the victim’s testimony
- Other spectators—including adult family members and the public—remained
- No press restriction was imposed
The Law: The Right to a Public Trial—But With Limits
The right to a public trial is guaranteed by:
- The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
- Article I, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution
But courts have long recognized that this right is not absolute. Under Waller v. Georgia 467 US 39 (establishing that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to pretrial suppression hearings), a courtroom can be closed (even partially) if four requirements are met:
- There is an overriding interest likely to be harmed
- The closure is no broader than necessary
- The court considers reasonable alternatives
- The court makes specific findings on the record
Why the Court Said This Closure Was Lawful
The appellate court found the trial judge followed the law carefully:
1. Compelling Interest: Protecting a Child Victim
Courts consistently recognize that protecting a minor from emotional trauma—especially in sexual abuse cases—is a compelling state interest.
This principle comes from cases like Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court and Florida precedent.
2. Narrowly Tailored Closure
The judge did not clear the courtroom. Instead:
- Only one person (the minor sibling) was excluded
- Only for a limited time (during testimony)
That level of precision is exactly what courts require.
3. Consideration of Alternatives
The court considered broader closure and rejected it—opting for the least restrictive solution.
That satisfies the requirement emphasized in Presley v. Georgia.
4. Detailed Findings on the Record
The judge explained the reasoning, including:
- The victim’s emotional reaction
- Her age at the time of the abuse
- The sensitive nature of the testimony
These findings are critical for appellate review—and were present here.
Key Florida Statutes in Play
The court also relied on Florida statutes that specifically allow protections for vulnerable witnesses:
- § 92.55, Fla. Stat. – Special protections for minors and sexual offense victims
- § 918.16(2), Fla. Stat. – Partial closure during testimony of sex crime victims
The Florida Supreme Court has already upheld these types of protections in Kovaleski v. State 103 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 2012).
Important Clarification: Family Members Don’t Have an Absolute Right to Stay
One of the defense arguments was that the statute allows family members to remain—so the sister could not be excluded.
The court rejected that argument outright:
- The statute permits certain people to remain
- It does not require courts to keep them there in every situation
Trial judges still have discretion to:
- Protect minors
- Prevent emotional harm
- Manage the courtroom environment
What This Means for You
For Defendants
- Your right to a public trial is strong—but not unlimited
- Courts can restrict access if they follow proper procedures
- Challenges to courtroom closures require careful analysis under Waller
For Victims and Witnesses
- Courts have tools to protect you from unnecessary trauma
- Especially in cases involving minors or sensitive testimony
Bottom Line
A public trial does not always mean everyone gets to stay in the courtroom at all times.
When handled correctly, limited, targeted courtroom restrictions are constitutional—especially when they protect vulnerable victims without undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, Marion and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.