Commonwealth v. David M. Cohen (No. 1)

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated when members of the public and press were excluded from jury empanelment pursuant to a courthouse policy. The court treated the exclusion as a partial courtroom closure requiring analysis under the Waller factors and ordered a new trial. It also held that the evidence supported the witness-intimidation and false-police-report convictions and found no error in the attempted-extortion jury instruction, permitting retrial on all charges.

Holdings

1. The jury empanelment effected a partial closure of the courtroom that violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial because it was broader than necessary, was not preceded by adequate consideration of reasonable alternatives, and lacked sufficient case-specific support.
2. Cohen did not waive his public-trial right by declining to attend individual sidebar voir dire examinations or by objecting on the fourth day of empanelment.
3. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Cohen wilfully sought to influence Kelly and Sexton through misrepresentation and intimidation.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Cohen knowingly filed a materially false police report.
5. The attempted-extortion instruction adequately conveyed the distinction between permissible police discretion and wrongful conduct within the statute, and no error occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the exclusion of members of the public during jury empanelment violated Cohen's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
2. Whether Cohen waived his public-trial right by accepting closed individual sidebar voir dire or by waiting until the fourth day of empanelment to object.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for witness intimidation.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for filing a false police report.
5. Whether the jury instruction defining malicious and unlawful conduct for attempted extortion adequately stated the law.
6. Whether the asserted prosecutorial misconduct warranted appellate relief.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded