An Alamosa County judge closed his physical courtroom to the public without documenting his reasons for doing so, prompting Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday to reverse the defendant’s convictions and order a new trial.
In reaching its decision, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals pointed to a recent ruling from the appellate court that recognized automatic reversal is not necessary when it is possible to remand the case to make additional findings retroactively justifying the courtroom closure.
However, that path was not available in the case of Gilberto Andres Montoya, the panel concluded, partly because of a scenario unique to the jurisdiction: the elected district attorney has since been disbarred and the trial prosecutor has also been disciplined for misconduct and left the office.
“Thus, neither prosecutor can assist in developing an additional record,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre in the April 18 opinion.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a public trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized public attendance benefits the criminally accused by permitting spectators to see a defendant is treated fairly and reminding trial participants about the importance of their work, among other reasons.
However, some circumstances may justify a judge’s decision to not keep their courtroom open to everyone — such as a spectator causing disruption or the closure being “trivial” in nature. Under the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Waller v. Georgia, trial judges must consider specific factors when deciding whether to close a courtroom to one or more people. Unless justified, a violation of the right to a public trial triggers automatic reversal of a defendant’s convictions.
A jury convicted Montoya of trespass, criminal mischief and failure to leave the premises after a 2021 trial in which Montoya represented himself. Months before trial, Montoya objected to any proceedings happening remotely, but a county court judge ruled the parties “may proceed by Webex,” a livestreaming platform.
Because of the COVID-19 precautions in place, then-District Court Judge Martin A. Gonzales required distancing and masking in his courtroom. Members of the public who wanted to watch the trial had to do so by Webex.
The appellate panel agreed the arrangement amounted to a courtroom closure that was not trivial, implicating the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial. Further, Gonzales made no findings to justify the closure in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive. The question, therefore, became whether to order a new trial outright or to return the case to the trial court for further analysis of the closure.
“We conclude that a remand would be futile, for two reasons,” Freyre wrote. “First, the elected district attorney has been disbarred and the prosecuting attorney was suspended and is no longer an employee of the district attorney’s office.”
The elected district attorney, Alonzo Payne, received a disbarment in 2022 for making false statements, mishandling cases and other misconduct. Montoya’s prosecutor at trial, R. Alex Raines, was also disciplined in 2022 for a pattern of threatening behavior.
Freyre additionally noted the justification for closing the courtroom could not be explored further on remand because it was clear Gonzales never considered any alternatives but the Webex stream to accommodate spectators.
The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Montoya. The Colorado Supreme Court is currently considering two appeals that will clarify whether public access to criminal trials through livestreams is sufficient to prevent a constitutional violation.
The appellate panel did not address Montoya’s other arguments that two jurors were not paying attention at trial and the district attorney’s office should have been disqualified from prosecuting him because both Payne and Raines assisted him in the past as defense attorneys.
The panel did, however, address for the first time whether the offense of “failure to leave the premises” requires a person to barricade themselves and refuse police entry through force, or if the offense can be committed through either method. The panel concluded a person can either barricade themselves or use force to be guilty of the offense.
The case is People v. Montoya.