Commonwealth v. Wolcott
77 Mass. App. Ct. 457 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
Facts
In March 2006, Donna Wolcott expressed unhappiness in her marriage and sought help to "get rid of a problem." She asked a coworker, Jill Scibelli, if her husband had "Scibelli" crime family contacts and confided in her cousin, John Jamroz, that she wanted her husband to "just disappear." Jamroz, after being contacted again by Wolcott, informed her sister and then the State police. Jamroz subsequently cooperated with police, making recorded calls to Wolcott where she reiterated that things were "okay" regarding the plan. Wolcott was later questioned by police at the station, arrested, and indicted. Her husband also obtained a restraining order, which she allegedly violated by calling him from prison to ask him to drop it.
Procedural history
The defendant, Donna Wolcott, was convicted by a Superior Court jury for solicitation to commit murder and two violations of abuse prevention orders. Following her conviction, she filed a motion for a new trial, which the Superior Court judge denied. The defendant then appealed her convictions to this court.
Issue
Was the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial violated by the exclusion of the public from the courtroom during jury selection? Did the trial judge err in the solicitation instruction, admitting prior bad act evidence, or denying exclusion of a signed statement due to recording gaps?
Holding
The court reversed the order denying the motion for a new trial, finding an unconstitutional closure of the courtroom. The judgments were reversed, verdicts set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial. The court upheld the judge's solicitation instruction and various evidentiary rulings.
Rule
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial, which extends to voir dire. A courtroom is considered closed if there is an affirmative act by the trial court to exclude persons, even without an express order. For a full closure, the Waller factors require an overriding interest, narrowly tailored closure, consideration of reasonable alternatives, and adequate findings. Trial courts must consider alternatives to closure, even if not proposed by parties, and take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance. A violation of the right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error analysis.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.