Does the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial require subjecting the child rape victim to an automatic retrial based on a technicality when there are ample and obvious reasons in the record justifying the closure during her testimony, even if the trial court does not expressly state those reasons on the record?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984), this Court held that the party seeking to close the hearing (1) must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and (4) it must make findings adequate to support the closure. Over a vigorous dissent, the Michigan Supreme Court held in this case that the respondent was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial because the trial court failed to articulate alternative reasons and to articulate its reasons on the record when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of the victim who explained that she was raped between the ages of 14 and 16 by her mother’s new husband. The court declined to consider the record showing the ample and obvious justifications for the closure in this case or remand to the trial court to articulate its reasons. The states are split on the proper remedy for this type of Waller error where a trial court fails to articulate its reasons for a closure. Some ignore the record and immediately grant a new trial while others remand for trial court articulation. The question presented is: Does the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial require subjecting the child rape victim to an automatic retrial based on a technicality when there are ample and obvious reasons in the record justifying the closure during her testimony, even if the trial court does not expressly state those reasons on the record?