approach is untenable because the court made no explicit findings before closing the courtroom), the reasons identified therein are insufficient to justify the closure. Delaney affirmed that, at the court’s direction, he excluded Gupta’s brother and girlfriend from the courtroom during voir dire because of “the large number of jurors in the venire panel” and the need “to protect the panel from hearing anything about the case from any member of the public pres ent.” See J.A. at 238-39. As we have previously held, such justifications are inadequate — a point the Government has conceded. See Original Appellee Br. at 25 & 25 n.* (“[T]he District Court’s exclusion of members of the public from the courtroom during voir dire violated the four-factor Waller test.”); Gibbons, 555 F.3d at 117 (<HOLDING>). Because the closure here was unjustified, the
holding that only the most compelling reasons can justify the total foreclosure of public and professional scrutiny to a courts basis for the adjudication holding that the fourth waller factor was satisfied despite the lack of specific findings of fact where the information gleaned from the record was  sufficient to support the partial temporary closure of petitioners trial holding that under waller insufficient space because of the size of the venire and the risk of tainting the jury pool are not compelling reasons for closure holding that fourth waller factor is satisfied where information gleaned from the record is sufficient to support the partial temporary closure of petitioners trial holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue