Background
A jury found Tacoby Davis guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. The trial court assessed punishment at 50 years in prison. Before testimony began, Davis identified several family members whom he might call during the punishment phase and asked that they be allowed to observe the guilt phase.
After the State invoked Texas Rule of Evidence 614, the trial court ruled that prospective witnesses would be sequestered during trial testimony. Davis ultimately designated only his aunt as a punishment-phase witness, and she was excluded from the courtroom while other witnesses testified. Davis argued on appeal that excluding her violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals held that excluding Davis’s aunt constituted a partial courtroom closure because the courtroom remained open to the general public and access was restricted only for a prospective witness. The court therefore applied the modified Waller standard, under which a partial closure may be justified by a substantial reason rather than an overriding interest.
The court concluded that all four modified Waller factors were satisfied. Sequestration protected the trial’s truth-seeking function by preventing testimony from being influenced by other witnesses; the exclusion was no broader than necessary under Rule 614; the trial court considered an alternative before determining that the rule required exclusion during testimony; and the record adequately established that the courtroom remained open except to prospective witnesses. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Excluding one prospective witness while leaving the courtroom open to the public is a partial, not total, courtroom closure.
- A partial closure satisfies the Sixth Amendment when a substantial reason supports it and the modified Waller requirements are met.
- Rule 614 sequestration may extend to a witness expected to testify only during punishment, and the party seeking an exception must show that the witness’s presence is essential.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that ordinary witness sequestration can coexist with a defendant’s public-trial right when the public remains free to attend and only identified witnesses are excluded. It also emphasizes that defendants seeking to keep a prospective witness in the courtroom must establish an applicable Rule 614 exception.