People v. Swafford
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
It is contended by appellant that the court had no power to order that all persons be excluded from the court-room, except the judge, jurors, witnesses, and persons connected with the case.
The Constitution of the State provides that every person accused of crime shall have the right to a public trial. (Const, art. i., § 13.)
*224Non constat, but defendant (who was charged with adbucting a chaste female, under age, for purposes of prostitution), assented to or demanded the order.
It is said, on behalf of appellant: First, it cannot .be presumed that defendant waived a constitutional right…
2Cited by32 opinions
- United States v. KobliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- MATTER OF UNITED PRESS ASSNS. v. ValenteNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Commonwealth v. BlondinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- People v. HartmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.