allegations made by the State. Guzman, 80 F.3d at 775. Further, the court held that it was improper to rely on “unsubstantiated statements of the prosecutor, rather than conducting an inquiry of the prosecution witness on whose behalf the closure request was made.” Id. The problem with the trial judge’s reliance on the proffers in the aforementioned cases is not that the judge considered the State’s proffer in rendering its decision. Rather, the common problem is twofold: first, the court relied on proffers containing generalized allegations rather than specific factual information; and second, there was no evidence supporting the content of the proffer. Generally, the better practice is for the trial judge to interview the witness on the record, or for the parties to conduct a voir (<HOLDING>). There may be circumstances, however, where
holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding the trial court must make findings adequate to support a closure holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids holding that carter mandates that where the trial court failed to make the requisite casespecific findings of fact closure of the courtroom violated the defendants right to a public trial