No. 22-1115

Chris Noel Tagunicar v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2023-05-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: bill-of-rights courtroom-access covid-19 covid-19-restrictions criminal-defendant first-amendment media public-trial sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Sixth Amendment public trial right mean that members of the public have a right to be physically present in the courtroom during the trial, including during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a public trial. In Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (per curiam), this Court held that excluding the public from voir dire of prospective jurors in a criminal trial violated the Sixth Amendment. This Court in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 US. __, 141 S.Ct. 716 (2021) struck down California’s total ban on indoor religious worship services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court protected one of our nation’s core Bill of Rights values, the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The same pandemic led a California trial court to impose a total ban on the “public” aspect of a criminal trial. The exclusion of the public from petitioner’s trial touches upon another of our nation’s core Bill of Rights values, the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The questions presented are: (1) Does the Sixth Amendment public trial right mean that members of the public have a right to be physically present in the courtroom during the trial, including during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) May a criminal defendant assert the media’s First Amendment right to be physically present in the courtroom during trial?

Docket Entries

2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-05-11

Attorneys

Chris Tagunicar
Paul Francois DeMeester — Petitioner