4th Circuit Upholds Conviction of North Carolina Drug Trafficker Despite Partial Courtroom Closure

A divided federal appeals court has upheld the drug trafficking conviction of a North Carolina man, ruling that a brief closure of the courtroom during his 2024 trial did not violate his constitutional right to a public trial.

In a 2-1 decision issued on July 20, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tamarcus Shaquan Ellis, a.k.a. Marc B, who was found guilty in federal court of methamphetamine trafficking and conspiracy in the Greensboro area. U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan sentenced Ellis to 40 years in federal prison.

The appeal centered on Flanagan's decision to close the courtroom for about one hour during the four-day trial while a government witness testified. The closure came after a U.S. marshal reported that at least one spectator had been making clicking noises with his teeth during the witness's testimony the previous day, behavior the court believed could intimidate the witness.

Writing for the majority, Judge Paul Niemeyer said the temporary closure implicated the Sixth Amendment's Public Trial Clause but concluded it was legally justified because it was limited in both scope and duration.

"We conclude that the closure was not trivial," Niemeyer wrote. "We also agree with Ellis that a violation of the Public Trial Clause is a structural error that would automatically require a new trial."

However, the majority determined that a different legal standard applies to partial courtroom closures than to complete closures.

"Where the closure was partial as to persons excluded and temporally limited, we apply a more relaxed test than that for a total closure of the courtroom," Niemeyer wrote. The court concluded the trial judge had a substantial reason for the closure, limited it to what was necessary, considered reasonable alternatives, and made sufficient findings to support the decision.

Judge Steven Agee joined the majority opinion.

Dissent: Constitutional Violation Required New Trial

Judge Julius Richardson strongly disagreed, arguing the trial court failed to meet the constitutional requirements before excluding the public.

"The district court closed its courtroom to the public during the testimony of the government's cooperating witness," Richardson wrote. "It found no fact. It never found intimidation likely absent closure. And it never considered a single measure short of closure."

Richardson acknowledged that prosecutors presented overwhelming evidence against Ellis but said the Constitution requires a new trial when the right to a public proceeding is violated.

"The denial of a public trial is structural error," Richardson wrote. "So even a defendant like Ellis receives a new trial when that right is violated. I would vacate his conviction."

Court Applied Modified Supreme Court Standard

The majority relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Waller v. Georgia, which established when courtrooms may be closed to the public. The appeals court said that while Waller governs total courtroom closures, a modified and less demanding test applies when a closure is temporary or only excludes some members of the public.

Under that modified standard, the court held that the district judge acted within constitutional limits by briefly closing the courtroom during the witness's testimony.

Separate Murder Conviction

The appeals court also noted that Ellis was later convicted in North Carolina state court in connection with the killing of a confidential informant.

According to the majority opinion, Ellis "was also allegedly involved in the murder, dismemberment, and burning of a woman who had been working as a confidential informant for the government by purchasing drugs from Ellis and others during the government's investigation."

That homicide case was separate from the federal drug prosecution and was not before the 4th Circuit in this appeal.

The ruling leaves Ellis' federal conviction and 40-year prison sentence in place unless the case is taken up by the full Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.