State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0996

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Abraham Isaac Bell,
Appellant.

Filed March 24, 2025
Remanded
Slieter, Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-CR-19-20254

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Elisabeth M. Johnson, Assistant County
Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rebecca Ireland, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Larson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
On direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction of first- degree aggravated
robbery, and upon a remand by the supreme court to the district court to make additional
findings as to whether the courtroom closure was no broader than necessary, appellant
2
argues that the district court deprived him of his right to a public trial because closing the
courtroom—by only providing a one-way video feed of the trial for public spectators in
response to COVID-19 -related courtroom restrictions —was broader than necessary.
Because the district court’s findings following remand are insufficient to permit appellate
review, we remand.
FACTS
In December 2019, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Abraham Isaac
Bell with first-degree aggravated robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1
(2018). In March 2020, the governor declared a peacetime emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-01, Declaring a Peacetime Emergency
and Coordinating Minnesota’s Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19 (Mar. 13,
2020). Shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an
order suspending the commencement of jury trials and restricting in-person courtroom
proceedings. Order Continuing Operations of the Courts of the State of Minnesota Under
a Statewide Peacetime Declaration of Emergency, No. ADM20-8001 (Minn. Mar. 13,
2020). The Minnesota Judicial Council later approved a pilot program which allowed for
a gradual recommencement of jury trials under new health and safety guidelines. See
Order Governing the Continuing Operations of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Under
Emergency Executive Order 20-48 , No. ADM20-8001 (Minn. May 1, 2020). Bell’s case
was selected for the program and the district court therefore designed a trial plan consistent
with the guidelines.
3
Bell objected to the district court’s trial plan which required that the public
spectators attend in a separate courtroom and view the trial via one-way video technology,
which meant that the trial-courtroom participants and jury would not be able to view the
spectators. He claimed that this would deprive him of a public trial. The district court
overruled Bell’s objection. Bell’s trial began on June 20, 2022, and the jury found him
guilty as charged.
Bell appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed. State v. Bell, No. A20-1636,
2021 WL 6110117, at *1 (Minn. App. Dec. 27, 2021), rev’d , 993 N.W.2d 418 (Minn.
2023). The supreme court reversed, concluding that excluding the public from the
courtroom in which Bell was being tried was a closure implicating his constitutional right
to a public trial. Bell, 993 N.W.2d at 420. The supreme court also concluded that there
were insufficient findings to determine whether the closure was justified under the
circumstances, and it remanded to the district court to make findings as to whether the
closure was broader than necessary.
1 Id.
On remand, the district court found that the closure was no broader than necessary
because a two-way video feed was not feasible at the time of Bell’s trial.
Bell appeals.

1 The supreme court also remanded for findings related to whether the district court
considered alternatives to closure. Id. On remand, the district court found that it considered
alternatives to closure, which Bell does not challenge on appeal.
4
DECISION
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions provide criminal defendants with a
right to a public trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. But this right is not
absolute and may give way to other rights or interests in certain cases. State v. Fageroos,
531 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Minn. 1995). The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted the factors
articulated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), for determining when a courtroom
closure is justified, including, as relevant to this appeal, whether the closure is “no broader
than necessary to protect that interest.” Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d at 201 (quoting Waller,
467 U.S. at 48).
Bell argues that the closure was broader than necessary, challenging the district
court’s finding that a two-way video feed was not available at the time of trial.
The district court found that it had started using Zoom technology for remote
hearings in April or May of 2020, which accommodates two-way communication. But the
courtrooms themselves “did not accommodate video software like Zoom” at the time of
trial. The district court explained that “[n]one of the courtrooms had video conferencing
capabilities; in fact, there was no Wi- Fi signal in the courtrooms. The monitors in the
courtroom were used to display projections of exhibits or videos from devices, not to
connect to the internet or access remote video conference.”
These findings however are insufficient to permit appellate review of whether the
closure was broader than necessary. The district court found that courtrooms did not have
Wi-Fi at the time of Bell’s trial, but there are no findings regarding other means of
connecting to the internet such as via an ethernet connection. The district court also found
5
that “the entire First Judicial District had access to only three (3) Microsoft surface laptops”
at the time of Bell’s trial, but there are no findings regarding whether, for instance, a
desktop computer was available and could be utilized to receive the video transmission
from the public spectator’s courtroom to the trial courtroom. Also, there are no findings
as to what efforts were made to determine whether another employee’s computer would
have been available for this purpose. Moreover, from the pictures that were attached to the
district court’s order, there appear to have been monitors or desktop computers in the trial
courtroom, but there are no findings regarding whether the spectator’s courtroom similarly
had a desktop computer which could, if the technology allowed, receive and transmit video
from that courtroom to the trial courtroom.
We are mindful of, and appreciate, the district court’s challenge to resurrect what
technological options may have been available at the time of trial, now nearly five years
ago, to allow for a two -way video feed. And we appreciate the detailed findings that the
district court made in explaining the difficulty in providing a two-way video feed.
However, because there are insufficient findings to permit appellate review to determine
whether the closure was broader than necessary, we remand to the district court to make
additional findings.
Remanded.