not supported by competent evidence because they were based solely upon the prosecutor’s arguments at the 9 September 2013 hearing. As explained above, we remanded this matter to the trial court so that it could evaluate the propriety of the temporary closure by applying the four-part Waller test and making the requisite findings. In so doing, the trial court essentially reheard on 9 September 2013 the State’s pretrial motion to close the courtroom. During the 9 September 2013 hearing, both the prosecution and defense counsel made arguments on their respective positions as to whether the temporary closure was proper. While Defendant is correct that arguments of counsel are generally not considered substantive evidence, see State v. Tuck, 191 N.C. App. 768, 775, 664 S.E.2d 27, 31 (2008) (<HOLDING>), this Court has held that in certain pretrial
holding that police officers testimony as to the victims prior inconsistent statements made to him on day of the alleged crime were not admissible as substantive evidence and could not be used to support a finding of guilt holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that prosecutors statements were not evidence and could not support restitution order holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that prosecutors were absolutely immune for withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of a court order because the order was issued in response to a defense motion for any exculpatory evi dence and thus required the prosecutors to make judgments