<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NEEDING HELP!!!!!!:
What is the legal term for when you first go into the courtroom & you want to ask the judge to make everyone leave the courtroom that is not involved in the case that is being heard? It is separation of something....PLEASE HELP ME!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
It called a Motion to Exclude Witnesses From Courtroom: On the motion of any party or sua sponte, the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. [Ca Evid § 777; see L.A. Sup.Ct. Rule 8.84]
"The purpose . . . is to prevent tailored testimony and aid in the detection of less than candid testimony." [> People v. Valdez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 680, 687, 223 Cal.Rptr. 149, 152] If you are going to make such a motion, do so at the in-chambers conference so that witnesses will be excluded from hearing the opening statements as well as any testimony! However, make sure you really want an exclusion order before requesting it. A motion to exclude just certain witnesses often results in an order excluding all witnesses. Unless there is a real likelihood of "tainted" testimony, the exclusion may backfire: You may end up offending witnesses upon whom you are relying for favorable testimony. The court has broad discretion in ruling on such motions. [See People v. Guy (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 714, 719, 13 Cal.Rptr. 17, 20--not abuse of discretion to refuse exclusion]
Comment: Although discretionary, most trial judges will, upon request of either counsel, order witnesses excluded during direct examination of other witnesses; no showing of "good cause" is usually required.
But the result may be different where this would deprive a party of an important "support person" or deprive counsel of a knowledgeable representative of a corporate party. In such cases, the court may vary the order of proof to have such persons testify first, limit the period of exclusion or deny the request entirely. Ask the judge to instruct the bailiff or court attendant of the witness exclusion order. It is then up to the bailiff or court attendant to enforce the order (e.g., by inquiring of persons in the courtroom whether any witness is present, etc.).
However, if your question concerns excluding all persons, even those merely viewing the trial, well . . .
Good luck.
Motion to Exclude Spectators: By statute, court proceedings are presumptively open to the public. [See Ca Civ Pro § 124--except as provided by law, "the sittings of every court shall be public"; and NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Locke) (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1191, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, 788-789]
Moreover, the public and press have a constitutional right of access, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to ordinary civil proceedings. Consequently, Ca Civ Pro § 124 must be interpreted in a manner compatible with the constitutional standards governing closure of trial proceedings. [NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Locke), supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1218, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d at 805 & fn. 30; see also Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980) 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2829, fn. 17]
Not absolute: The presumption of openness can be overcome upon a proper showing if the court provides adequate notice of the contemplated closure (and/or sealing) and holds a hearing where it expressly finds:
· there is an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing;
· there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing;
· the proposed closure is narrowly tailored; and
· there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. [NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Locke), supra, 20 Cal.4th at 1217-1218, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d at 808-809--civil litigant's right to fair trial is an "overriding interest" that could, in appropriate cases, necessitate closure]
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited March 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited March 16, 2000).]
