ALBANY – In a trio of cases revisiting the circumstances under which the public may be barred from a criminal courtroom, a divided state Court of Appeals yesterday held that judges must consider less restrictive alternatives but are not required to articulate those options on the record.
The majority said that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the issue "did not break new ground" and the standards set by the state court in 1997 remain viable. Two dissenters said the ruling "eviscerates the substance" of a 2010 Supreme Court holding and "allows such issues to escape meaningful appellate review."
