United States v. Dharni, No. 11-16438 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion where the request that family members and spectators leave the courtroom until seats became available was at most a trivial courtroom closure that did not implicate defendant's Sixth Amendment right. The failure to object to the courtroom closure request or to appeal the conviction on that ground was not deficient performance on the part of trial counsel. Finally, defendant was not prejudiced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence challenging the alleged closure of the courtroom during voir dire of petitioner’s criminal trial. The panel held that the trial judge’s request that family members and spectators leave the courtroom during voir dire until seats became available was at most a trivial courtroom closure that did not implicate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights. The panel further held that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the request or challenge the alleged closure on appeal because it would not have disturbed the conviction.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 2, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.