STATE OF MARYLAND v. TRAVIS THANIEL
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Battaglia, August 29, 2018,
IAC – Closure of a courtroom during voir dire is not automatically considered prejudicial
Facts:
In 2004, Travis Thaniel was indicted for murder and related charges stemming from an assault and robbery in East Baltimore.
During jury selection, seating in the courtroom was limited and so the court asked the defense whether it would mind waiving the defendant’s right to a public trial in order to allow jury selection to occur efficiently. The defense attorney stated that he had no objection, and so the courtroom was closed to anyone who was not a prospective juror.
Thaniel was convicted of murder and his conviction was upheld on appeal.
Thaniel later filed a post-conviction, arguing that his attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to closing the courtroom during jury selection.
The judge who heard his post-conviction granted him a new trial.
The State appealed, arguing that Thaniel’s attorney was not constitutionally ineffective to the point where a new trial was required.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that closing the courtroom during jury selection was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant granting Thaniel a new trial.
6th Amendment – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to … have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
6th Amendment – This means that he is entitled to a defense attorney who acts in a reasonable manner according to professional norms.
Post-Conviction – A defendant may be entitled to a new trial if he can demonstrate that his defense attorney acted unreasonably and that this resulted in “prejudice” to his case (a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”)
From the Case: In this case, the defense attorney’s actions were reasonable in that “there was evidence in the record that the reason trial counsel had agreed to the closure was, at least in part, his desire to avoid a possible outbreak of violence between spectators sympathetic to his client and spectators sympathetic to the victim.”
Right to Public Trial – Post-Conviction – Failure to object to closing a courtroom is only considered prejudicial if “the particular public-trial violation was so serious as to render his or her trial fundamentally unfair.”
From the Case: Even if the defense attorney’s actions were unreasonable, “Thaniel has failed to show that the potential harms flowing from a courtroom closure, such as juror misconduct during voir dire or misbehavior by the prosecutor, judge, or any other party, had come to pass, and we similarly conclude that the public trial violation did not pervade the whole trial or lead to basic unfairness. The purported prejudice he alleges that he suffered is purely speculative and provides no basis for vacating his convictions.”