Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0587 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Cross, Appellant. Filed September 8, 2009 Affirmed Johnson , Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. K5-07-2351 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mitchell L. Rothman, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102-1657 (for respondent) Marie L. Wolf, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard A. Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, 540 Fairview Avenue North, Suite 300, St. Paul, MN 55104 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS A requirement that persons attending a hearing in a criminal case identify themselves before being admitted to the courtroom does not implicate a defendants Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

OPINION JOHNSON, Judge Jerome Cross pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. At the plea hearing, there were altercations between persons in the gallery of the courtroom. After the plea hearing, there were additional altercations outside the courtroom and outside the courthouse between persons believed to have attended the plea hearing. To discourage similar incidents at Crosss sentencing hearing, and to aid in any subsequent investigation, the district court required attendees to identify themselves to deputy sheriffs before being admitted to the courtroom. Cross argues that the security procedures employed by the district court at his sentencing hearing violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. We conclude that those security procedures had no impact on his right to a public trial because the procedures did not result in the exclusion of any person who wished to attend the hearing. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS On April 22, 2007, Cross boarded a bus in downtown St. Paul shortly after midnight with a loaded handgun in the waistband of his pants. Emmett Wilson-Shaw and Earl Ray Freeman were among the passengers on the bus. Cross boarded the bus with the intention of shooting Wilson-Shaw because, according to his statement at his plea hearing, Wilson-Shaw had threatened to kill him several months earlier. Cross drew his handgun and fired a shot at Wilson-Shaw. The bullet missed Wilson-Shaw but hit Freeman in the chest, killing him. 2

In June 2007, the state charged Cross with two counts of second-degree murder. In November 2007, Cross pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder without premeditation. At the conclusion of the plea hearing, there was a disturbance in the gallery of the courtroom between two groups of persons attending the hearing. The disturbance continued in the courthouse lobby and in the street outside the courthouse. There also was a drive-by shooting a few blocks from the courthouse and several altercations throughout the city in the following days. The Ramsey County Sheriffs Department believed that all of these incidents were related to Crosss case. At the sentencing hearing in January 2008, the sheriffs department set up two tables outside the entrance to the courtroom. Deputy sheriffs sat behind the tables and recorded the names of persons who entered the courtroom. If a person did not have a state identification card or other proof of identification, the deputy sheriffs asked the person for his or her name and to allow a photograph to be taken. When the sentencing hearing commenced, Cross objected to the security procedures, arguing that they violated his constitutional right to a public trial. The district court heard arguments from both parties and then made findings regarding the incidents that had taken place at the time of the plea hearing. The district court also made findings concerning the consequences of the security procedures. Based on the testimony of a deputy sheriff, the district court found that no one who wished to attend the sentencing hearing had been refused entry to the courtroom. The district court also found that no one who wished to attend the sentencing hearing had been detained. The district court further found that no one had been subjected to a search other than the customary 3

screening at the main entrance to the courthouse. The district court expressly considered the factors required by caselaw concerning a criminal defendants right to a public trial. The district court then concluded that the security procedures that had been used were appropriate in light of the security risks and the interests of public safety. The district court proceeded to sentence Cross to 391 months of imprisonment, consistent with the plea agreement and the arguments of defense counsel. Cross appeals. ISSUE Did the district court violate Crosss Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by requiring persons attending his sentencing hearing to identify themselves to deputy sheriffs before being admitted to the courtroom? ANALYSIS Cross argues that the district court erred by requiring persons attending his sentencing hearing to identify themselves before being admitted to the courtroom. Because Cross does not dispute the district courts factual findings, his argument presents a question of law, to which we apply a de novo standard of review. State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 135 (Minn. 2005). The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution confer on criminal defendants the right to a public trial, with identical language: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . public trial . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I,

Download A08-587, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Cross, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law