CAAF Opinion Digest · I.B.12 · Constitutional Matters

Right to a Public Trial

At the court
1 digested opinion, 2024–2024 Terms
2024 (October Term)
United States v. Miller, 86 M.J. 188 · decided Sep 24, 2025 · No. 25-0025/AR
  1. the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal prosecution the right to a public trial, and this right to a public trial applies to courts-martial
  2. the Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial applies to the actual proof at trial (i.e., the presentation of evidence to the jury), but it has never clarified how far the right extends beyond that core application or articulated a test for determining whether the right applies to specific pretrial hearings
  3. the Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed that the Sixth Amendment public trial right does apply to two specific pretrial proceedings, suppression hearings and voir dire
  4. neither the Sixth Amendment public trial right nor the RCM 806 public trial right extends to closed hearings conducted pursuant to MRE 412; these hearings have a discrete and limited purpose involving evidentiary determinations and are not part of the trial for purposes of the public trial right; and with respect to RCM 806, that is a general rule that prohibits the closure of courts-martial to the public, and in contrast, MRE 412 is a narrow mandate for closed proceedings in very specific circumstances; following the statutory canon that the specific governs the general, MRE 412 is properly interpreted as an exception to RCM 806's general rule
Source and status

This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.

Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IB12 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).