“must make findings adequate to support the closure,” Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210; accord Gibbons, 555 F.3d at 116; Ayala v. Speckard, 131 F.3d 62, 69 (2d Cir.1997) (in banc). In other words, if a court intends to exclude the public from a criminal proceeding, it must first analyze the Waller factors and make specific findings with regard to those factors. If a trial court fails to adhere to this procedure, any intentional closure is unjustified and will, in all but the rarest of cases, require reversal. E.g., Presley, 130 S.Ct. at 725. Here, despite not making any Waller findings, the district court intentionally excluded the public from the courtroom for the entirety of voir dire. On these facts alone, the closure was unjustified. See Waller, 467 U.S. at 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, even if we accept Delaney’s
recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings holding the trial court must make findings adequate to support a closure holding that trial court must make findings of fact on all material factual issues that involve ultimate issues in divorce and must make findings that characterize and value each asset or liability on which disputed evidence was presented holding that carter mandates that where the trial court failed to make the requisite casespecific findings of fact closure of the courtroom violated the defendants right to a public trial 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