Lagana v. Wiggins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the “state interest in main taining the continued effectiveness of an undercover officer is an extremely substantial interest”
• holding that undercover officer’s statement that she was “active in the area of ‘West 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue’ in Manhattan” justified closure
• holding that if “[n]o additional alternatives were suggested by any party,” trial court “had no obligation to consider additional alternatives sua sponte”
• holding that closure was “limited not only because it last[ed] only for the testimony of one witness ... but also because there [was] no limitation at all on the right of the public or the press to examine the transcript of the officer’s testimony”
• stating that trial judges had no obligation to consider making exception for family members sua sponte
• explaining that sua sponte consideration of further alternatives is not required because (1) there is no authority for such a requirement in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and (2) imposing such a requirement would be “dangerous”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).