What is the test for closing the trial of a witness in a witness testimony?

We further find no fault in the result the trial court reached in exercising its discretion. Defendant's proffered justification for excluding the public from part of the trial was too generalized and speculative to establish his interests were likely to be prejudiced unless the courtroom was closed. Without more (and there was no more), the crime about which defendant provided some information to the policeillegal gambling or operation of slot machinesis not among the type of serious or violent offenses that could in many instances suggest a heightened danger to a police tipster. Further, defendant himself did not articulate any safety concern or relay any particularized facts to suggest why he would be in danger; rather he relied solely on his attorney's generalized and speculative assertion that anyone in custody who provides information to the police could be subject to reprisals. (Cf. Guzman v. Scully (2nd Cir. 1996) 80 F.3d 772, 775 [decision to close trial violated defendant's rights where "the trial court relied on the unsubstantiated statements of the prosecutor, rather than conducting an inquiry of the prosecution witness on whose behalf the closure request was made"].) Defendant's request that the court exclude anyone from being present was also quite broad, rather than being narrowly focused on specifically identified spectators. Indeed, accepting defendant's argument that the trial court was obligated to close the courtroom in this case would require the trial courts of this state to close the courtroom in virtually any case where an informant or cooperating witness testifies because such witnesses would always

Page 11