PEOPLE v. WATSON (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), rendered August 16, 2004, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see U.S. Const. Amend. VI;  Civil Rights Law § 12;  Judiciary Law § 4) because the Supreme Court excluded his family and his attorney's supervisor from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer.   Although the Supreme Court may have been justified in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony (see People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 498, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413), it was error to exclude the defendant's family (see People v. Garcia, 95 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 727 N.Y.S.2d 1, 750 N.E.2d 1049;  Rodriguez v. Miller, 439 F.3d 68 [2d Cir.];  People v. Ematro, 284 A.D.2d 408, 728 N.Y.S.2d 162;  People v. Pena, 258 A.D.2d 673, 686 N.Y.S.2d 63), and the defense counsel's supervisor (see People v. Hines, 225 A.D.2d 706, 640 N.Y.S.2d 133;  People v. Mercer, 204 A.D.2d 741, 612 N.Y.S.2d 650).   The undercover officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing (see People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273) did not establish, nor did the Supreme Court find, that the defendant's family or the supervisor posed a threat to the officer.   Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

In light of the foregoing determination, the defendant's remaining contention need not be addressed.