In Re Pers. Restraint of Coggin

/FILE,,
' IN CLERKS OFFICE ""'
MIPRI!ME COURT, STATE OF WASHNmlN
DATE DEC 1 1 2014
3-AAtwM+.g'
~ CHIEF JUSTICE
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Personal )
Restraint of ) No. 89694-1
)
WILLIAM RICHARD COGGIN, )
)
Petitioner. )
________________________) Filed DEC 1 1 2014
C. JOHNSON, J.-In this case we must decide what standard on review is
applicable in a personal restraint petition asserting a violation of the right to a
public trial under article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. 1 Here
and in In re Personal Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014),
prospective jurors were questioned in chambers without the trial court engaging in
the analysis required by State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d 254, 906 P.2d 325 (1995).
After his convictions were affirmed on appeal, petitioner William Coggin brought
this timely personal restraint petition, claiming the private questioning of jurors
1
This case was certified to this court by Division One of the Court of Appeals with in re
Personal Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014). Both cases present the same
central issue but were not consolidated. This case provides the 'in-depth analysis of the common
issue, and Speight applies the same analysis discussed here.
Inre Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
constituted a closure and raising the issue of whether actual and substantial
prejudice must be shown from a public trial right violation in order to obtain relief
by personal restraint petition. With the principles of appellate finality in mind, we
hold that while Coggin's public trial rights were violated, a petitioner claiming a
public trial right violation for the first time on collateral review must show actual
and substantial prejudice. Coggin does not show actual and substantial prejudice
arising from the closure; therefore, his petition is denied.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 23, 2004, William Coggin went to a home in Whatcom County,
where he tried to solicit yard work and attempted to sell key chains. Two young
sisters were home at the time, and one sister refused both of his offers after
opening the door. At the refusal, Coggin pulled out a gun, entered the home, and
raped the two sisters. A third sister and the parents arrived home later. Coggin
ordered them upstairs at gunpoint, and then he left.
Coggin was charged with first degree burglary, first degree rape, second
degree assault, first degree robbery, and first degree unlawful possession of a
firearm, with 11 firearm enhancements. During jury selection, defense counsel
expressed a desire for individual juror questioning due to the publicity and
sensitive nature of the case. The prosecutor drafted a juror questionnaire, and
defense counsel approved the final version. The questionnaire advised the potential
2
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
jurors that if they preferred to discuss their answers in private, the court would give
them an opportunity to explain their answers in a "closed hearing." Resp. toPers.
Restraint Pet., App. Cat 1. The court and the parties questioned 12 prospective
jurors in chambers. Before doing so, the court did not engage in the analysis
required by Bone-Club. Six prospective jurors were dismissed for cause.
The jury convicted Coggin. Counsel raised no public trial issue on direct
appeal, and in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed all
convictions but the assault conviction. 2 Coggin filed a timely personal restraint
petition in 2007, arguing that his right to a public trial was violated during jury
selection. 3 The petition was stayed multiple times in the Court of Appeals, pending
decisions by this court. In December 2013, Division One of the Court of Appeals
certified the case to this court.
2
See State v.Coggin, noted at 134 Wash. App. 1028 (2006) (vacating the second degree
assault conviction because the conviction violated double jeopardy principles).
3
In his opening brief, Coggin asserts that his article I, section 22 rights to a public trial
and the public and press's article I, section 10 rights to a public trial were violated. WASH.
CQNST: art. I,§§ 10, 22. However, Coggin does not further analyze whether the public's right
was violated when the trial court questioned jurors individually. Therefore, we will analyze only
the public trial right is~ue under article I, section 22.
3
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
ANALYSIS
1. Public Trial Right
We must first decide whether the trial court's private questioning of jurors
constituted a closure, thereby violating Coggin's public trial rights. A criminal
defendant has a right to a public trial as guaranteed by our state and federal
constitutions. U.S. (:oNST. amend. VI; WASI-L CONST. art. I, § 22 (providing "the
accused shall have the right ... to have a speedy public trial"); State v. Paumier,
176 Wash. 2d 29, 34, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012). We have repeatedly held that the public
trial right applies to jury selection. Specifically, it is well established that the public
trial right in voir dire proceedings extends to the questioning of individual
prospective jurors. State v. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 16-19, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012). The
ri:ght to a public trial is not absolute; a trial court may close the courtroom so long
as it considers the five criteria outlined in Bone-Club. Failure to conduct a Bone-
Club analysis before closing the pro~eeding is error generally requiring a new trial
because voir dire is an inseparable part of trial. Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d at 35 .
. Here, the trial court erroneously closed the courtroom when it privately
questioned potential jurors during voir dire without first conducting a Bone-Club
analysis. The State argues that this case is like State v. Momah, 167 Wash. 2d 140,
151-52, 217 P.3d 321 (2009), where we found no public trial right violation. In that
case, we emphasized that the defendant affirmatively assented to the closure of
4
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
voir dire and actively participated in designing the trial closure. Additionally, while
it was not explicit; the trial court in Momah effectively considered the Bone-Club
factors. However; in this case, the trial court did not explicitly or implicitly
c(msider the Bone-Club. factors or acknowledge that it was closing the courtroom.
The State provided the juror questionnaire that offered potential jurors a "closed
hearing" and while Coggin approved of the questionnaire, he did not actively
1 participate in designing the trial closure.
The State also argues that Coggin invited any violation of his right to a
public trial. "The basic premise of the invited error doctrine is that a party who sets
up an error at trial cannot claim that very action as error on appeal and receive a
ne\v trial." McJmah, 167 Wash. 2d at 153. In determining whether the invited error
doctrine applies, we have considered whether the defendant affirmatively assented
to the error, materially contributed to it, or benefited from it. For example, we have
held that a party may not request a jury instruction and later complain on appeal
thatthe requested instruction was given. See City of Seattle v. Patu, 14 7 Wash. 2d
717, 58 P.3d 273 (2002). In contrast, even with its unique set of facts, we held that
Momah did not present a classic case of invited error and rejected relief based on
invited error. Similarly, here, Coggin's actions do not rise to the level of invited
error by merely as0enting to the State's juror questionnaire and where it was the
5
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
trial judge vvho detid~d to q~estiori jurors in chambers. Therefore, we conclude
Coggin did not invite any violation of his right to a public trial.
2. ·Actual and Substantial Prejudice
The general rule is when a personal restraint petitioner alleges a
constitutional viohition, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the constitutional error worked to his actual and substantial
prejudice. In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d 321, 328, 823 P.2d 492
(1992). In ln.re Personal Restraint of Morris, 176 Wash. 2d 157, 166, 288 P.3d 1140
(2012), w.e recognized an exception to this general rule and held that in that case
we would presume prejudice where petitioners allege a public trial right violation
by way of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because "[h]ad
Morris's appellate counsel raised this issue on direct appeal, Morris would have
received~ new tri.al. ... No clearer prejudice could be established." Because we
deci~ed ~1orris on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel grounds, we did not
address whether a meritorious public trial right violation is also presumed
prejudicial on collateral review. Based on our cases, we hold no presumption
applies in this context.
As we explained in In re Personal Restraint of Stockwell, 179 Wash. 2d 588,
316 P.3d 1007 (2014), a petitioner's burden on collateral review has evolved over
the course of several decades. We have required petitioners who collaterally attack
6
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
their convictions to satisfy a higher burden, recognizing that a personal restraint
petition does not substitute for a direct appeal, and different procedural rules have
been adopted recogriizing this difference. Where a presumption of prejudice is
appropriate for direct review in some cases, it may not be appropriate for collateral
review. Stockwell, 179 Wash. 2d at 596~97. Even in those cases where the error
would never be harmless on direct review, we have not adopted a categorical rule
that would equate per se prejudice on collateral review with per se prejudice on
direct review. "Wehave limited the availability of collateral relief because it
undermines the principles of finality of litigation, degrades the prominence of trial,
and sometimes deprives society of the right to punish admitted offenders." St.
Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d at 329 (denying relief where issue of defective charging
documents was raised for the first time in a personal restraint petition (citing In re
Pers. Restraint of Hagler, 97 Wash. 2d 818, 824, 650 P.2d 1103 (1982))).
We have recognized that the principles of finality of litigation generally
require that a higher standard be met before a presumption of prejudice attaches on
collateral revit~w. The petitioner's burden to establish actual and substantial
prejudice in a personal restraint petition is generally relaxed only where the error
gives rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice. St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d at 328.
,•
This higher ~tandard on collateral review is met only where, in light of the essential
purpose of the constitutional right at issue, a violation of the right would
7
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
necessarily prejudice the defendant. Morris, 176 Wash. 2d at 181-82 (Wiggins, J.,
dissenting) (citing St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d at 329). For example, a petitioner need
not prove harm in addition to that which is inherent in proof of the error itself
when a petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial
withholding of material exculpatory evidence. Stockwell, 179 Wash. 2d at 607
(Gordon MeCloud, J., concurring). At times, we have applied the exception to the
,general rule that a petitioner must show actual and substantial prejudice on
collatei·al review, but it is just that-an exception-which must be narrowly
recognized and applied, lest the general rule be swallowed by the exception.
Here, the record reflects Coggin cannot establish prejudice by any violation
of his public trial right. We have stated, "The public trial right serves to ensure a
f~ir trial, to remind the officers of the court of the importance of their functions, to
encourage witnesses to come forward, and to discourage perjury." State v.
Brightman, 155 Wash. 2d 506, 514, 122 P.3d 150 (2005). None ofthese goals are
n~cessarily jeopardiz~d here. While a defendant's public trial rights are implicated
by in-chambers voir dire, prejudice is not "conclusive," nor can it be presumed on
collateral review. This is so because a limited trial closure, in and of itself, does not
require reversal where the trial court considers and justifies the closure after
applying the Bone-·Club factors. We cannot therefore say that a defendant will be
prejudiced every time there is a closure. Here, the record establishes, Coggin was
8
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
charged with rape. The trial judge and the parties were concerned with juror
impartiality because the case had received significant news coverage and expressed
concern that jurors potentially had prior knowledge of the crime. This private
questioning perhaps worked to benefit Coggin by protecting his right to a fair trial
by an impartial jury. Under these circumstances, requiring a showing of prejudice
is consistent with the general rule applicable to personal restraint petitions.
~· The interests of finality and the process underlying appellate review require
us to draw a line at some point. "Although some errors which result in per se
prejudice on direct review will also be per se prejudicial on collateral attack, the
interests of finality of litigation demand that a higher standard be satisfied in a
coDateral.proceedlng.~' St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d at 329. While, as mentioned above,
we have carved out an exception and will presume prejudice for petitioners who
allege ~public trial right violation by way of an ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel.claim, we refuse to extend this exeeption any further.
Also, as stated above, significant policy reasons support why it is
appropriate to presume prejudice stemming from a public trial right violation on
direct review but not on collateral review. Collateral review is fundamentally
different from a direct appeal, and different rules apply on direct review as
compared to collateral review. Primarily, the appellate process exists to remedy
~ ' ' ' ' .
trial errors even when constitutionally based. But after a conviction becomes final
9
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
and a defendant raises a public trial right violation on collateral review, the social
costs from reopening the case and retrying it are much greater. The appellate
process also exists to develop the body of law governing all cases; collateral
review focuses on the facts of the individual defendant, and its purpose is to correct
the most egregious errors that cause actual harm. The principles of finality
outweigh any public trial rights when the petitioner raises the public trial right
issue for the first time on collateral review.
I-It~re, Coggin does not argue or establish that he was actually and
substantially prejudiced, nor do the facts support that conclusion. As a result of the
individual questioning of jurors, Coggin's goal was to benefit from a more fair
trial, as jurors were presumably more forthcoming about their relative experiences
and their abilities to serve impartially on the jury. While it is difficult to show that
apublic trial right violation was prejudicial, it is not impossible in every case.
Underour established rules, it is the petitioner's burden on collateral review, which
Coggin has not established.
10
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin, No. 89694-1
CONCLUSION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR:
11
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William R.)
No. 89694-1
MADSEN, C.J. (concurring)-The lead opinion holds that petitioners must show
actual and substantial prejudice when raising a public trial right violation for the first time
on collateral review. Lead opinion at 2. I agree with the lead opinion's decision to deny
William Coggin's personal restraint petition. However, I would instead hold that Coggin
invited the courtroom closure during voir dire and accordingly is precluded from raising
the issue on collateral review. Thus, we need not reach the question of actual and
substantial prejudice.
Nevertheless, because guidance is needed I would agree with the majority that the
error here, failure to engage in the analysis outlined in State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wash. 2d
254, 906 P .2d 325 (1995), requires a petitioner in a personal restraint petition to prove
prejudice unless he can demonstrate that the error in his case '"infect[ ed] the entire trial
process"' and deprive the defendant of '"basic protections,"' without which '"no criminal
punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair."' Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1,
8-9, 119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S.
No. 89694-1
Madsen, C.J. concurring
619, 630, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577,
578, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1986)).
DISCUSSION
We engage in a three step inquiry to analyze public trial right violations,
considering whether the public trial right is implicated, whether there was a closure, and
whetheranysuchclosurewasjustified. Statev. Smith, 181 Wn.2d508, 513, 334P.3d
1049 (2014) (quoting State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 92,292 P.3d 715 (2012) (Madsen,
C.J., concurring)). But a party is precluded from raising a public trial right challenge, and
thus we do not begin this three step inquiry, where the party invited the error or waived
his or her public trial rights. See State v. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 15 & n.8, 288 P.3d 1113
(2012) (recognizing the application of invited error and waiver to public trial rights).
Here, Coggin invited the error created by the questioning of 12 jurors in chambers and so,
in my view, the analysis ends there.
The goal of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a party from '"setting up an
error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal."' City of Seattle v. Patu, 147 Wash. 2d
717, 720, 58 P.3d 273 (2002) (quoting State v. Pam, 101 Wash. 2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762
(1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash. 2d 315, 893 P.2d 629
(1995)). The mere failure to object is not sufficient to invite an error. State v. Strode,
167 Wash. 2d 222, 229, 217 P.3d 310 (2009). Instead, looking to the totality of the
circumstances, we consider whether the party engaged in affirmative and voluntary action
to induce or contribute to the error and whether he or she benefited from the trial court's
2
No. 89694-1
Madsen, C.J. concurring
action. Constitutional error may be invited. In fact, this court has recognized the
applicability of the doctrine to public trial rights cases. See Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 15 n.8;
State v. Momah, 167 Wash. 2d 140, 153-55,217 P.3d 321 (2009). Moreover, the doctrine
applies equally on direct and collateral appeal. See, e.g., In re Pers. Restraint of
Tortorelli, 149 Wash. 2d 82, 94, 66 P.3d 606 (2003) (applying the invited error doctrine to
collateral review of an instructional error). Accordingly, the invited error doctrine is
germane here.
In the voir dire context, the key inquiry with invited error is whether the defendant
"actively participated" in the closure. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 15 n.8; Momah, 167 Wash. 2d at
153-55. In Momah, this court used invited error principles to fashion a remedy
appropriate to the violation. 167 Wash. 2d at 154. We reasoned that Momah had the
opportunity to object to in-chambers voir dire, but instead made the "deliberate choice" to
pursue this option for tactical reasons, and "affirmatively assented to, participated in, and
even argued for the expansion ofin-chambers questioning." !d. at 155. In Wise, we
affirmed the potential applicability oftheinvited error doctrine to an in-chambers voir
dire error but reasoned that the defendant there did not "actively participate[]" in the
closure in the way that Momah did. 176 Wash. 2d at 15 n.8.
The facts of Coggin's case are similar to those of Momah and dissimilar from
Wise. In Wise, 10 jurors were questioned privately in the judge's chambers during voir
dire, compared to the 12 who were questioned privately during Coggin's trial. !d. at 7.
However, the factors motivating the decision to privately question the jurors were quite
3
No. 89694-1
Madsen, C.J. concurring
different. In Wise, the trial judge suggested questioning jurors in chambers,
communicated directly with the jurors about that proposal, and orchestrated the entire
process. !d. Defense counsel may have ultimately acquiesced to the private questioning
but played no part in generating or executing the process. In contrast, in Coggin's case it
was defense counsel who expressed concern that pretrial publicity may have impacted
certain venire members, that some may have trouble answering questions about the
sensitive topic of rape, and that some may taint the remaining venire members with their
testimony. The prosecutor then drafted a questionnaire that addressed these concerns by
giving jurors the option to answer questions privately in a "closed hearing." After
suggesting one change, defense counsel approved this questionnaire. Defense counsel
then actively participated in the questioning process in chambers and never voiced any
objection to the procedure.
In contrast to Wise, defense counsel here clearly "actively participated" in the
concerns that motivated the in-chambers questioning, the drafting of the questionnaire to
include provision for a "closed hearing," and the questioning that later occurred. The
totality of the circumstances suggest that the in-chambers questioning of jurors was in
line with defense counsel's hopes and expectations for preventing a jury tainted with
pretrial publicity, marred by graphic stories from the personal lives of other venire
members, or harboring past experience with sexual assault.
Accordingly, I would hold that Coggin invited the voir dire error by advocating for
private questioning, engaging in the drafting of the questionnaire that promised private
4
No. 89694-1
Madsen, C.J. concurring
questioning, and actively participating in the in-chambers questioning that occurred. For
this reason, I concur in the lead opinion's decision to deny Coggin's petition.
5
No. 89694-1
Madsen, C.J. concurring
6
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard)
No. 89694-1
STEPHENS, J. (dissenting)-"One of the demands of a democratic society is
that the public should know what goes on in courts ... to the end that the public may
judge whether our system of criminal justice is fair and right." Maryland v.
Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 920, 70S. Ct. 252, 94 L. Ed. 562 (1950).
Voir dire is a critical part of the court process, and how parties and judges treat it is
a matter of substantial public concern. E.g., Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106
S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986) (recognizing peremptory challenges occupy
important position in trials and cannot be exercised based on race discrimination);
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S. Ct. 692,42 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1975) (holding
discrimination against women on juries impermissible). We should protect the
public trial right by acknowledging that an uninvited, unwaived violation of this
important right is always inherently prejudicial.
The lead opinion misapprehends the nature of the public trial right by applying
a harmless error analysis to this structural error. Structural errors such as public trial
violations defy harmless error analysis because their impact may be impossible to
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
gauge in a particular case, yet they intangibly harm the framework in which trials
operate. This fact is no less true on collateral review than on direct appeal. Because
the lead opinion requires personal restraint petitioners to prove the impossible, and
because its holding erodes the promise of open justice in our courts, I respectfully
dissent.
The lead opinion begins with the unremarkable proposition that a personal
restraint petitioner must prove substantial and actual prejudice by a preponderance
of the evidence in order to obtain relief. Lead opinion at 6 (citing In re Pers.
Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wash. 2d 321, 328, 823 P.2d 492 (1992)). But from this
premise it then mistakenly describes our decision in In re Personal Restraint of
Morris, 176 Wash. 2d 157, 166, 288 P.3d 1140 (2012), as recognizing an "exception"
to this general rule. Lead opinion at 6. In fact, the court in Morris required the
petitioner to demonstrate prejudice in order to establish his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, but held that the structural nature of the public trial right
violation conclusively established prejudice. 17 6 Wash. 2d at 166. We said:
Here, there is little question that the second prong of this test [prejudice] is
met. In [State v.] Wise[, 176 Wash. 2d 1, 288 P.3d 1113 (2012)] and [State v.]
Paumier, [176 Wash. 2d 29, 288 P.3d 1126 (2012)] we clearly state that a trial
court's in-chambers questioning of potential jurors is structural error. Had
Morris's appellate counsel raised this issue on direct appeal, Morris would
have received a new trial. See [In re Pers. Restraint of] Orange, 152 Wn.2d
[795,] 814[, 100 P.3d 291 (2004)] (finding prejudice where appellate counsel
failed to raise a courtroom closure issue that would have been presumptively
prejudicial error on direct appeal). No clearer prejudice could be established.
I d. (emphasis added). Our holding in Morris followed the steady progression of
precedent since State v. Bone-Club, in which we stated that "[p ]rejudice is presumed
-2-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
where a violation of the public trial right occurs." 128 Wash. 2d 254, 261-62, 906 P.2d
325 (1995) (citing State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142, 146-47,217 P. 705 (1923); Waller
v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39,49 & n.9, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984)). 1
In our first case to consider a public trial violation on collateral review, we
recognized that a showing of prejudice was met-not excused-by the structural
nature of the error. Orange, 152 Wash. 2d at 814 (holding public trial error is
"presumptively prejudicial," so that appellate counsel's failure to raise issue on
appeal "was both deficient and prejudicial"). We reiterated this point in Morris. See
176 Wash. 2d at 166. Our most recent decisions confirm this truth: the prejudice from
a public trial violation inheres in the error. See State v. Frawley, 181 Wash. 2d 452,
459, 334 P.3d 1022 (2014) (C. Johnson, J., lead opinion) ("Closure ofthe courtroom
without [a Bone-Club] analysis is a structural error for which a new trial is the only
remedy."); State v. Njonge, 181 Wn.2d 546,554,334 P.3d 1068 (2014) ("A violation
1
Though the court in Bone-Club described prejudice as "presumed," the thread of
its analysis makes clear the point that actual prejudice inheres in a public trial violation.
Marsh adopted the reasoning in a case from the Supreme Court of Michigan, according to
which both the defendant and '""the whole body politic suffers an actual injury when a
constitutional safeguard erected to protect the rights of citizens has been violated.""' 126
Wash. at 147 (quoting People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228,230,71 N.W. 491 (1897) (quoting
People v. Murray, 89 Mich. 276,290,50 N.W. 995 (1891))). Waller adopted the reasoning
of several state and lower federal cases, which held that defendants need not demonstrate
specific prejudice on appeal for a public trial right violation because actual prejudice is
difficult to prove in that context and diminishes "'the great, though intangible, societal loss
that flows' from closing the courthouse doors." 467 U.S. at 49 n.9 (quoting People v.
Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 416, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335 (1979)).
-3-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
of the public trial right is structural, meaning prejudice is per se presumed to inhere
in the violation."); State v. Shearer,_ Wn.2d _ , 334 P.3d 1078, 1082 (2014)
(Owens, J., lead opinion) ("[C]losing part of a trial to the public without considering
the Bone-Club factors ... is structural error presumed to be prejudicial."); State v.
Slert, _ Wn.2d _ , 334 P.3d 1088, 1091 (2014) ('"A public trial is a core
safeguard in our system of justice,' and violations of article I, section 10 [ofthe state
constitution] are structural error and can be raised for the first time on appeal."
(quoting Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 5)). We are not free to disregard the core of our public
trial jurisprudence simply because this case arises in a somewhat different posture
from our prior cases. The lead opinion misframes the issue when it cautions that we
should not relax the burden to show prejudice in a personal restraint petition, "lest
the general rule be swallowed by the exception." Lead opinion at 8. This case is
not about finding some exception to personal restraint petition standards, but about
recognizing that prejudice always flows from this structural error-as we have said
time and again.
Public trial violations are structural for two main reasons. First, an unjustified
closure taints the entire framework in which the trial operates. Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at
6 ("the error affects the framework within which the trial proceeds"), 14 ("Where
there is structural error "'a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a
vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be
-4-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
regarded as fundamentally fair.""' (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279,
310, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S.
570, 577-78, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1986))); see Paumier, 176 Wash. 2d
at 35 ("privately question[ing] potential jurors during voir dire without first
conducting a Bone-Club analysis ... is structural [error] and warrants a new trial
just as it did in Wise"). Second, it is impossible to gauge the prejudice of an
unjustified closure. Wise, 17 6 Wash. 2d at 19 ("Because it is impossible to show
whether the structural error of deprivation of the public trial right is prejudicial, we
will not require Wise to show prejudice in his case. 'We will not ask defendants to
do what the Supreme Court has said is impossible.'" (quoting Owens v. United
States, 483 F.3d 48, 65 (1st Cir. 2007))); Waller, 467 U.S. at 49 n.9 ("a requirement
that prejudice be shown 'would in most cases deprive [the defendant] of the [public-
trial] guarantee, for it would be difficult to envisage a case in which he would have
evidence available of specific injury"' (alterations in original) (quoting United States
ex rel. Bennett v. Rundle, 419 F.2d 599, 608 (1969)); "'Because the demonstration
of prejudice in this kind of case is a practical impossibility, prejudice must
necessarily be implied.'" (quoting State v. Sheppard, 182 Conn. 412, 418, 43 8 A.2d
125 (1980))); see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209,216, 139 S. Ct. 721, 175 L.
Ed. 2d 675 (2010) (granting relief without requiring petitioner to show prejudice
because the trial court excluded the public from voir dire in violation of petitioner's
right to a public trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution).
-5-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
The structural nature of public trial error establishes the inextricable link
between proof of the error and proof of prejudice. Consistent with our precedent,
the United States Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez,
548 U.S. 140, 146, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2006), that where a person
suffers a structural constitutional error, "[n]o additional showing of prejudice is
required to make the violation 'complete.'" (Addressing violation of Sixth
Amendment right to chosen counsel.) A structural error is unlike a trial error that
concerns the "presentation of the case to the jury" and can be "quantitatively
assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its
admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-
08. Analyzing the prejudice from a structural error would force the court to make a
"speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternate universe."
Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150. "It is impossible to know what difference choices
... would have [been] made [in the absence of the structural error], and then to
quantify the impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings."
I d.
Having recognized that violation of a criminal defendant's public trial right
constitutes structural error, the lead opinion should recognize this error, like all
structural errors, warrants reversal of the conviction. Instead, it seeks out reasons
why the procedural posture of this case makes all the difference to the outcome.
First, it looks to the greater interest in finality upon collateral review to justify
requiring a showing of prejudice here. Lead opinion at 7, 9. It asserts, without any
-6-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
analysis, that "[t]he principles of finality outweigh any public trial rights when the
petitioner raises the public trial right issue for the first time on collateral review."
Id. at 10. Why? What value does a final judgment hold when it follows a proceeding
we must recognize as unconstitutional? How is society's interest in knowing that its
punishments are meted out justly less important in this context? Moreover, how do
the relative interests weigh differently simply because a personal restraint petitioner
alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise a public trial
violation (as in Orange and Morris) as opposed to a direct public trial violation?2
Ultimately, it is this court's responsibility to safeguard the openness of court
proceedings in this state, and the security of that societal interest should not depend
on the pleading decisions-or mistakes-of those whose trials were marred by
structural error. While the costs of retrial are high, we have always held that a single
public trial right violation is worth that cost. Orange, 152 Wash. 2d at 800.
The lead opinion acknowledges that the interest in finality must be weighed
against the countervailing interest in securing the "essential purpose of the
constitutional right at issue." Lead opinion at 7. Though the public trial right serves
many purposes, its essential purpose is
2
For the interests to weigh differently in this collateral review than in Orange and
Morris, the lead opinion must believe that the right to effective assistance of counsel
deserves greater protection than the right to a public trial. But, there is no authority for this
proposition, especially given that deprivation of the public trial right falls within the "'very
limited class of cases"' constituting structural error. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8,
119 S. Ct. 1827, 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1999) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461,
468, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 137 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1997) and citing Waller, 467 U.S. 39).
-7-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
to ensure a fair trial, to remind the prosecutor and judge of their responsibility
to the accused and the importance of their functions, to encourage witnesses
to come forward, and to discourage perjury.
State v. Sublett, 176 Wash. 2d 58, 72, 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (citing State v. Brightman,
155 Wash. 2d 506, 514, 122 P.3d 150 (2005)); lead opinion at 8. The "public trial
[right] helps assure that the trial is fair; it allows the public to see justice done, and
it serves to hold the justice system accountable." Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 17 (citing
Waller, 467 U.S. at 46). The lead opinion hypothesizes that in light of the closure
of the voir dire in this case and in the companion case, the defendants probably
received "more fair" trials. Lead opinion at 10 ("Coggin's goal was to benefit from
a more fair trial, as jurors were presumably more forthcoming about their relative
experiences and their abilities to serve impartially on the jury."); see also In re Pers.
Restraint of Speight, No. 89693-3, slip op. at 6 (Wash. Dec. 11, 2014) ("As a result
of the individual questioning, [Speight] likely received a more fair trial and an
impartial jury.") Of course, neither defendant submitted evidence regarding the
effect of closed voir dire, so the lead opinion's assumptions find no support in the
record.
More importantly, the premise that closed voir dire generally ensures fairer
trials flatly contradicts United States Supreme Court authority. In Press-Enterprise
Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 503, 104 S. Ct. 819,78 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1984),
the State argued that voir dire was properly closed in a rape/murder trial because "if
the press were present, juror responses would lack the candor necessary to assure a
-8-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
fair trial." The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that argument, as well as the
implication that "openness" is necessarily opposed to "fairness":
No right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial. But the
primacy of the accused's right is difficult to separate from the right of
everyone in the community to attend the voir dire which promotes fairness.
. . . The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually
attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being
observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance
that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will
become known. Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the
criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence
in the system.
Id. at 508. By speculating that closed voir dire likely benefitted Coggin and Speight,
the lead opinion fundamentally misunderstands the right at issue. It is not for this
court to determine whether openness or closure best ensures juror candor-the
framers of the Sixth Amendment and article I, section 22 of the state constitution
have already done so. The constitutional choice is in favor of openness: Tolerating
any public trial right "deprivations would erode our open, public system of justice
and could ultimately result in unjust and secret trial proceedings." Wise, 176 Wash. 2d
at 18.
The lead opinion says that "a limited trial closure, in and of itself, does not
require reversal where the trial court considers and justifies the closure after applying
the Bone-Club factors." Lead opinion at 8. Thus, it concludes, "[w ]e cannot
therefore say that a defendant will be prejudiced every time there is a closure." Id.
This misses the point. A justified closure does not constitute a public trial violation.
State v. Smith, 181 Wash. 2d 508, 513, 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). In contrast, every public
-9-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
trial violation undermines the essential purposes of the public trial right because the
right hinges upon the openness of the process. As the lead opinion acknowledges,
this case presents not a justified closure, but a public trial right violation. Lead
opinion at 2. Having established a violation, the petitioner need not establish
additional prejudice. 3
This court has previously given relief to personal restraint petitioners who
alleged public trial right violations for the first time on collateral review, recognizing
that the nature of the error demands relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel. Orange, 152 Wash. 2d at 800 ("Although a new trial will
undoubtedly place on the affected community an extremely difficult burden, a
burden that will be particularly painful for the families and friends of the victims of
3
The additional prejudice inquiry the lead opinion would require is nothing other
than a post-hoc Bone-Club analysis. Notwithstanding our consistent refusal to engage in
such analysis, the lead opinion would require courts to make an after-the-fact determination
whether a closure "perhaps worked to benefit" the personal restraint petitioner, lead
opinion at 9, or gave him "a more fair trial, as jurors were presumably more forthcoming."
Id. at 10. We made clear in Wise that such inquiry is flatly inconsistent with the structural
nature of public trial error. ·
[W]e cannot know what the jurors might have said differently if questioned
in the courtroom; what members of the public might have contributed to
either the State's or defense's jury selection strategy; or, if the judge had
properly closed the court under a Bone-Club analysis, what objections,
considerations, or alternatives might have resulted and yielded. Cf United
States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273, 281 (4th Cir. 2003) ("Like other structural
errors, the error here has repercussions that are 'necessarily unquantifiable
and indeterminate.' Sullivan [v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282, 113 S. Ct.
2078, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993)]. We simply cannot know what [e]ffect a
twelfth juror might have had on jury deliberations. Attempting to determine
this would involve pure speculation.").
Wise, 176 Wash. 2d at 18-19 (alterations in original).
-10-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
crimes charged in this case, our duty under the constitution is to ensure that, absent
a closure order narrowly drawn to protect a clearly identified compelling interest, a
trial court may not exclude the public or press from any stage of a criminal trial.");
see Morris, 176 Wash. 2d at 173 (finding violation of the public trial right and granting
relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). While the lead
opinion distinguishes these cases because they included allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel, this distinction cannot withstand scrutiny. Orange and Morris
held that the prejudice required to prove ineffective assistance of counsel was
established by the structural nature of the public trial error. See Orange, 152 Wash. 2d
at 814; Morris, 176 Wash. 2d at 166. Public trial error is no less structural when it is
raised directly rather than through a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. The petitioner stands in no different position. He is no more capable of
showing the type of prejudice the lead opinion would demand than were the
petitioners in Orange and Morris, nor for that matter than the defendants whose
counsel raised public trial error on direct appeal. The constitutional deprivation is
the same in every case. The remedy should be the same.
Importantly, recognizing the per se prejudice of public trial right violations
alleged on collateral review does not open the floodgates to personal restraint
petitions. Collateral relief remains available to only a finite number of petitioners.
The one-year time bar stands as a formidable obstacle to many late-recognized
claims. RCW 10.73.090. To my knowledge, the public trial right has never been
used to grant a personal restraint petition under any of the exceptions in RCW
-11-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
10.73.100. Thus, the "problem" the lead opinion imagines will result from granting
relief on collateral review is overstated, while the cost of its "solution" cannot be.
Its holding disregards the essential purpose of the public trial right and departs from
the steady path of our precedent since Bone-Club.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
-12-
In re Pers. Restraint of Coggin (William Richard), 89694-1 (Stephens, J. Dissent)
13