PEOPLE v. WALKER (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael WALKER, Appellant.

Decided: April 07, 1997

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and FRIEDMANN, FLORIO and McGINITY, JJ.

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Natalie Rea, of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Ann Bordley, of counsel), for respondent.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, closure of the courtroom was proper in this case where the undercover officer's testimony established a sufficient link between his concern for his safety and open court testimony (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 571 N.Y.S.2d 436, 574 N.E.2d 1042). Further, the fact that the defendant knew the undercover officer's name did not obviate the need for closure. “[W]hile there may have been limited disclosure of [the undercover officer's] name, there had been no disclosure of his appearance, and closure was necessary to prevent members of the public from connecting his face with his name” (People v. Johnson, 233 A.D.2d 761, 764, 650 N.Y.S.2d 408).

The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network