98 (5th Cir.1995). We have pointed out in our cases, however, that "[excluding even just some of the public is considered to be a closure of the courtroom and may affect a defendant's right to a public trial.” Tharp v. State, 362 Md. 77, 102 n. 14, 763 A.2d 151, 164 n. 14 (2000); Watters v. State, 328 Md. 38, 45, 612 A.2d 1288, 1293 (1992); see also Walker v. State, 121 Md.App. 364, 373, 709 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1998). 2 . The charges against Longus were: Count 1: Robbery with a deadly weapon; Count 2: Robbery; Count 3: Theft of $500 value or more; Count 4: Assault, first degree; Count 5: Assault, second degree. 3 . By opposing the State’s motion to exclude Myers and Norris, Longus preserved his claim for appellate review. See Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 110, 976 A.2d 1072, 1083 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Longus also argued in his brief to the
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review holding that a claimed violation of the right to a public trial must be preserved for review by a timely objection at trial holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review