it would have interposed two rows of spectators between the remaining venire and the sight lines of counsel and Judge Lindsay, thus markedly decreasing the value to counsel derived from closely observing the potential jurors most likely to next be called to sit. 7 . The Court’s initial fact-finding was 'T9,” Hr'g Tr. vol. 3 at 91. An actual count of excused jurors from the trial transcript yields "20.” 8 . The Court notes that a bench in Courtroom 11 sits four persons comfortably and could have squeezed in five. Thus, to be completely precise, the cou ("[A] defendant’s right to a public trial is not implicated by temporary limitation of ingress and egress to the courtroom to prevent disturbance of the proceedings.”); Commonwealth v. Dykens, 438 Mass. 827, 835-36, 784 N.E.2d 1107 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Hartman, 536 Pa. 211, 218,
holding that no closure occurred when judge did not allow anyone to enter or leave courtroom during jury instructions holding that no closure occurred where judge locked doors to ensure jury would not be distracted holding that closure was narrowly tailored where courtroom was closed only during testimony of two undercover officers and transcript was not sealed holding that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a defendants trial take place in a specific courtroom or division within a federal district and that the jury pool need not include anyone from the division in which the crime occurred holding that jury instructions must allow the jury to determine the issues presented intelligently