of the Waller Factors to a Motion to Exclude Two Spectators from the Courtroom During the Testimony of a Key Prosecution Witness To decide whether the trial court properly granted the State’s motion to exclude Myers and Norris, we apply the four Waller factors to the facts of this case and determine whether the State, as the moving party, met its burden of proof in establishing an overriding interest in closure. Overriding Interest Likely to be Prejudiced A "witness’s legitimate fear of testifying in open court, or the witness’s legitimate fear of testifying in front of specific individuals in the courtroom, may present an overriding interest in the partial closure of the courtroom. See Tinsley, 868 A.2d at 875; Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140, 155, 984 A.2d 262, 271 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Feazell v. State, 111 Nev. 1446, 906 P.2d
recognizing the seriousness of witness intimidation and the states interest in securing testimony without the influence of intimidation holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources