No. 22-6755
Lecedric Prentice Harris v. Florida
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-specific-justification constitutional-law constitutional-requirement courtroom-closure criminal-procedure judicial-discretion public-trial-clause split-of-authority statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-03-03
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the state court correctly held — in conflict with
holdings of this Court, the supreme courts of other states, and
federal courts of appeal — that trial courts do not violate the Public
Trial Clause by closing a criminal courtroom pursuant to a statute
without a case- by-case assessment of the necessity of doing so.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the state court correctly held that trial courts do not violate the Public Trial Clause by closing a criminal courtroom pursuant to a statute without a case-by-case assessment of the necessity of doing so
Docket Entries
2023-03-06
Petition DENIED.
2023-02-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/3/2023.
2023-02-15
Waiver of right of respondent State of Florida to respond filed.
2023-02-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2023)
Attorneys
Lecedric Harris
Gary Lee Caldwell — Office of Public Defender, Petitioner
State of Florida
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent