739, 685 N.E.2d 492 (inferring that trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest). As to the fourth prong of the Waller test, the trial court’s ruling, though brief, was nevertheless sufficient to justify the partial courtroom closure. The Supreme Court’s requirement that the trial court make findings “adequate to support the closure,” Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, mandates only that the findings be specific enough “that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered.” Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. at 510, 104 S.Ct. 819. Hence, the Second Circuit does not require explicit findings where, as here, the record supports partial courtroom closure. See Woods, 977 F.2d at 77-78 (<HOLDING>); accord Bowden v. Keane, 237 F.3d 125, 132,
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 the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause holding the trial court must make findings adequate to support a closure 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 appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record