there was any discussion about the choice of particular jury instructions. Moreover, the only record at trial about what occurred during the in-chambers conference was the trial court’s recitation stated above. The better practice is for the parties and the trial court to hold these conferences in open court or to state on the record the nature of the in-chambers discussions, the specific issues discussed, and the results of in-chambers or sidebar conferences held at any point during a trial. Ticeson, 159 Wn. App. at 384 n.27. The burden on appeal is on Bennett to show a violation of either his or the public’s right to open and public trials, e.g., that the public trial right applied to the particular issues discussed during an in-chambers conference. See Smith, 162 Wn. App. at 846 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, appellants bear the burden of
holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that appellant failed to meet his burden of showing that the trial court violated his right to a public trial by sealing jury questionnaires used in open court during voir dire holding that the legislature intended the trial court to be more involved in the voir dire procedure in capital felony cases holding that appellant is entitled to prosecutors voir dire notes if they were actually used by prosecutor to refresh his memory holding that because the defendant failed to make any objection at the close of voir dire he waived his batson claim