New York's highest court suggested on Thursday that a state trial judge may have violated a murder suspect's constitutional right to a public trial when she closed her courtroom to the public halfway through an eight-day criminal proceeding because of what she called "very intimidating" behavior on the part of spectators.

A majority of judges on the New York State Court of Appeals, which was hearing arguments as a full panel for the time in months after the confirmation of Judge Caitlin J. Halligan to the bench this week, appeared sympathetic to arguments that acting Justice Ruth Pickholz erred in not finding less drastic remedies before ordering that the second half of Dwight Reid's eight-day murder trial be held behind closed doors.

Rachel Bond, who argued on behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Reid, defended Justice Pickholz's decision to remove all audience members from the courtroom, arguing that, even though the move was prompted by what the justice said was concerning behavior from Reid's supporters, she had acted in an even-handed way "in fairness" to Reid by removing all spectators, including the victim's family, from the courtroom.

Judge Jenny Rivera, however, suggested during Thursday's arguments that she was less than convinced.

"Is that a basis to exclude people from the courtroom?" she asked. "Where in the law … is that supported?"

Judge Shirley Troutman challenged Bond further on that point.

"There are some jurors who might wonder [why] there were family members of the defendant [and then] suddenly they're gone," she said. "Wouldn't that adversely affect him?"

Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution trials are presumed to be open to the public. Court closures are deemed constitutional under U.S. Supreme Court doctrine established in Waller v. Georgia and Presley v. Georgia in rare instances such as during the testimony of undercover police officers or to protect witnesses from retribution.

New York State case law, meanwhile, spells out a process for closing a courtroom to the public. Judges are required to hold a hearing — known as a Hinton hearing after the New York State high court's 1972 ruling in People v. Hinton — to consider whether a closure is necessary to avoid prejudicing one of the parties, and whether less extreme means could be employed instead.

According to court records, Justice Pickholz closed Reid's trial to the public on the fourth day of the proceeding without a Hinton hearing after she expressed concern that people in the gallery had stared at her and at witnesses on the stand, and because some of them had taken pictures in the courtroom, which is against the law.

"They stare people down. They're staring up here," Justice Pickholz said at the time, according to court records. "I am closing this courtroom, and I'm closing it to the family [of the deceased] as well."

In March last year, a five-judge panel of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed what the judges called Justice Pickholz's "provident" decision to close the courtroom, saying the judge acted in response to behavior that might have been more serious than trial transcripts reflected.

Reid, who is Black, was found guilty of shooting a 33-year-old man to death at close range in a Manhattan club with a gunshot to the head at close range. His case has attracted the interest of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which said in an amicus brief filed last month that Justice Pickholz, who is white, might have acted out of racial bias.

On Thursday, the judges asked Richard M. Greenberg, an attorney with Romano & Kuan PLLC represented Reid, what actions Justice Pickholz could have taken, short of a full closure, to deal with what she perceived as disturbing behavior by audience members.

Greenberg said she had several options — including ordering that spectators give up their cellphones, or removing individual audience members who showed an intimidating demeanor — but that a Hinton hearing was required.

Judges Halligan, Rivera and Madeline Singas asked how much deference Justice Pickholz's own impression should be given in determining whether her decision was constitutional.

"Do we not have to defer at all to her finding that no lesser remedy was available?" Judge Halligan asked.

"No, you do not have to defer to that," Greenberg responded, calling the trial judge's action "erroneous" because she failed to follow the protocol mandated by the Supreme Court in Waller, which requires judges to find that a compelling governmental interest that would likely be threatened and prejudiced without a courtroom closure.

"The judge has a requirement under the Constitution and under Supreme Court law to make as narrow a ruling as possible to effectuate the right to a public trial and to do everything the court can to make sure that right is upheld," he said. "In this case, the judge did the exact opposite."

Greenberg wrapped up his argument by warning the state high court that the case strikes at the heart of one of the most fundamental principles of the American justice system — the right to a fair trial — and urged the judges to reverse the mid-level court decision.

"If this Court were to affirm in this case, there would be a deep erosion of the right to a public trial," he said. "It would send a signal to judges that they can close courtrooms based on atmospherics and impressions rather than a factual record."

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is represented by Assistant District Attorneys Rachel Bond and Alan Gadlin.

Reid is represented by Richard M. Greenberg and Julia P. Kuan of Romano & Kuan PLLC.

The case is People of the State of New York v. Dwight Reid, case number APL-2022-00106, in the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

--Editing by Peter Rozovsky.