October Term 2006 · Docket 05-785
Do spectator photo buttons violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights?
The dispute centers on whether a state court applied the correct legal standard when it denied a defendant's claim that spectator photo buttons prejudiced his trial.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The defendant's attorney argued the state court opinion contained a legal error.
The state's attorney argued the state court reached the correct result despite the error.
Justices questioned the proper standard for reviewing state court applications of Supreme Court law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case involves a criminal defendant who claimed that photo buttons worn by spectators violated his constitutional rights. The state court rejected this claim. The defendant now argues the state court used the wrong legal standard. The state argues the state court reached the correct result despite a flawed explanation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 11, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-17
What each side wants
The defendant wants the Supreme Court to reverse the state court decision and find a constitutional violation.
The state wants the Supreme Court to affirm the state court decision and uphold the conviction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What each side says
The defendant argues the state court applied an incorrect legal standard for evaluating spectator conduct.
The state argues the state court reached the correct result, so the error was harmless.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if the state court's standard focused on the risk of improper factors influencing the jury.
Chief Justice Roberts asked how to review a state court that reached the correct result but used the wrong standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
Why it matters
This case defines the standard for reviewing state court decisions on jury impartiality. It clarifies how federal courts handle state court errors in applying constitutional law. The outcome sets a precedent for evaluating spectator conduct in criminal trials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.