Don’t Get Crowded Out: Using Criminal ‘Public Trial’ Rights to Keep the Gallery Open in High-Conflict Custody Jury Trials

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Breedlove, 05-24-01091-CR, January 29, 2026.

On appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County.

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a criminal conviction, holding that the trial court’s exclusion of a single spectator from jury selection due to courtroom space constraints violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Because the trial court failed to satisfy the rigorous four-prong Waller v. Georgia test before closing the proceedings, the error was structural, necessitating a total reversal and remand for a new trial.

Relevance to Family Law

While Stricker is a criminal matter, the constitutional right to a public trial—and the high bar required to circumvent it—carries profound implications for high-conflict custody and property jury trials. Texas family law litigators often navigate “the rule” and courtroom management issues in emotionally charged cases. This ruling serves as a warning: trial courts cannot prioritize administrative convenience or “crowded galleries” over the fundamental right of the public to observe proceedings. If a trial judge excludes a client’s support system or a strategic observer during voir dire without making specific, record-supported findings on the necessity of that closure, any resulting decree is vulnerable to a structural error challenge that requires no showing of harm.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Jennifer Jo Stricker was indicted for theft of property valued between $150,000 and $300,000. Prior to the commencement of jury selection, a venire panel of seventy-seven individuals was summoned to the courtroom. Stricker’s counsel requested that a friend of the defendant, Robert Knaus, be permitted to observe the voir dire. The State did not oppose the request. However, the trial court denied the request, citing the size and configuration of the courtroom. The court noted that with seventy-seven jurors, the only available seating for an observer would be in the “well” of the courtroom, the witness chair, or the jury box—locations the court deemed unacceptable for a non-party. Following her conviction and a fourteen-year sentence, Stricker appealed, asserting that her Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated.

Issues Decided

The primary issue decided was whether the trial court’s refusal to accommodate a member of the public during jury selection, based solely on seating capacity and the presence of a large venire panel, constituted a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

Rules Applied

The Court applied the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a public trial. The court relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Waller v. Georgia, which dictates that any courtroom closure must meet four criteria: (1) the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; (2) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; (3) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and (4) the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. Furthermore, the court applied Cameron v. State, a Court of Criminal Appeals case confirming that the exclusion of spectators during voir dire specifically triggers these constitutional protections.

Application

The appellate court followed a two-step analysis to determine if the public-trial right was violated. First, it determined the courtroom was indeed “closed.” Despite the trial court’s protestations that it did not intend to close the proceedings, the physical exclusion of a specific individual (Mr. Knaus) from a portion of the trial (voir dire) met the legal definition of a closure. The court rejected the notion that the exclusion was “de minimis” or merely a matter of logistics.

Second, the court applied the Waller factors. The trial court failed this test because it did not demonstrate an “overriding interest” that necessitated the exclusion. While safety and juror “honesty” were mentioned, the record showed the trial court failed to consider reasonable alternatives, such as bringing in an additional chair or moving the proceedings to a larger venue like the central jury room. By failing to accommodate even one spectator when the State was unopposed to his presence, the trial court failed to ensure the closure was “no broader than necessary.”

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court violated Stricker’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court emphasized that the right to an open courtroom is not a secondary concern to be sacrificed for the sake of seating a large jury pool.

The court further held that a violation of the right to a public trial is a structural error. Unlike most evidentiary or procedural errors, structural errors do not require a “harm analysis.” Because the error affected the very framework of the trial, the court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, Stricker provides a roadmap for protecting the record during a jury trial. In high-stakes SAPCR cases, it is common for large venire panels to fill every bench in the gallery. If the trial court sua sponte or upon the bailiff’s suggestion clears the “non-jurors” (including your client’s family or experts not under the rule), you must immediately object on the record.

This case confirms that “we don’t have enough chairs” is an insufficient legal basis for exclusion. If your client wants their new spouse, a parent, or a religious advisor present during voir dire, and the court refuses, you have a potential “reset button” for the entire case. Conversely, if you are the prevailing party, you must ensure the trial court makes the specific Waller findings on the record if any closure occurs, or risk having your hard-won verdict vacated on appeal.

Checklists

Preserving the Right to a Public Trial

• Identify the Spectators: Ensure the record reflects exactly who is being excluded (e.g., “The court is excluding the Respondent’s mother and a member of the local press”).
• Make a Timely Objection: Object the moment the court suggests clearing the gallery for the venire panel.
• Suggest Alternatives: Formally suggest moving to a larger courtroom or the central jury room, or request the bailiff provide additional seating in the well.
• Demand Findings: If the court proceeds with the closure, request that the court state its specific Waller findings on the record.

Defending a Favorable Verdict from Structural Error

• Oppose Unnecessary Closures: Even if it makes the room crowded, do not agree to the exclusion of the other side’s spectators unless there is a legitimate safety or “the rule” issue.
• Build the Waller Record: If the court insists on closure, assist the court in making findings regarding safety, security, or juror privacy to ensure the closure is “no broader than necessary.”

Citation

Stricker v. State, No. 05-24-01091-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

The full opinion can be found here: View Opinion

Family Law Crossover

In Texas, the right to a jury trial in custody cases is a cherished—and often strategically volatile—right. Stricker provides a potent weapon for the family law “underdog.” If a trial judge in a conservative or “traditional” jurisdiction attempts to clear the courtroom of “unnecessary” people during a sensitive voir dire (perhaps involving allegations of substance abuse or domestic violence), the litigator now has a clear path to a structural reversal.

Because the public trial right is structural, a family law appellant does not have to prove that the exclusion of their sister or friend from the gallery actually biased the jury. The mere fact of the exclusion, absent Waller findings, can be used to weaponize a procedural oversight into a mandatory reversal of a custody or property division decree. Litigators should view the “open courtroom” not as a courtesy, but as a jurisdictional-adjacent requirement that, if ignored, can topple even the most well-tried case.

~~37f95ace-bbd6-4104-8a6a-dfb48a37b6fd~~