CA1: closing the courtroom is okay during contempt proceeding, as are some redactions

US v. Bucci, Nos. 06-2746, 07-1087.  The facts of this case go on and on, but it essentially comes down to dirty-cops-turned-drug dealers.

The really big issue is the “courtroom closure” issue.  “Bucci argues that the district court erred by closing the courtroom during jury selection and later during a contempt proceeding against Raftery [who was refusing to testify].”  The First says that the jury selection argument needs to be developed on collateral review.  But, the First explains that the Sixth Amendment doesn’t really apply to civil contempt proceedings, and this contempt proceeding was really “collateral” to the defendant’s trial, as no evidence was really presented against the defendant.

The second big issue if whether the government can present a partially redacted transcript.  Despite the FRE 106 rule of completeness, the First says that nobody was prejudiced.

But there is more below the fold

Anyway, an ineffective assistance argument, advanced for the first time on appeal is rejected.  But, the First says that they are either too fact-specific for the Court of Appeals, or there was overwhelming evidence, otherwise.

Regarding a severance motion, the First says that a denial wasn’t an abuse of discretion, and a limiting instruction (regarding hearsay whether a transcript should be redacted before being provided to the jury) was good enough.  The defendant then claims that the government’s closing argument made it impossible to follow the limiting instruction, but the First disagrees.

The First also rejects so “pro se” brief arguments, because lawyers were not involved in making these arguments, they are not worth the time.