Summary
remanding with instructions to grant petition where at en banc argument, "the Attorney General of the State of New York, representing the interests of the State in opposition to the petition, took the position that the hearing evidence did not comport with governing standards for closure"
Summary of this case from Collins v. TravisOpinion
No. 98-2717.
Argued In Banc: June 7, 2000.
Decided: August 19, 2000.
RICHARD M. GREENBERG, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York, N Y (Joseph M. Nursey, of counsel), for Petitioner-Appellant.
PREETA D. BANSAL, Solicitor General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Elliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General (Edward D. Johnson, Deputy Solicitor General, and Melanie L. Oxhorn, Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor Generals, of counsel), for Respondent-Appellee.
This is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a New York State narcotics conviction on the ground that the trial judge ordered the courtroom closed during the testimony of an undercover police officer under circumstances that do not conform to the constitutional standards. The district court denied the petition. This panel reversed, directing the petition to be granted. The court voted to rehear the appeal in banc.
At the in banc argument, the Attorney General of the State of New York, representing the interests of the State in opposition to the petition, took the position that the hearing evidence did not comport with governing standards for closure. Because there was no dispute between the parties on the propriety of the closure, the in banc court dissolved itself and remanded the appeal to the panel to be resolved on the basis of the Attorney General's concession.
On the basis of the Attorney General's concession, and without considering the merits of the question, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to grant the petition. Our prior opinion dated June 18, 1999 is hereby vacated.