context: Given the brevity of the closure and the nature of Martinez's testimony, the state court's determination that the prosecutor met his burden was not an unreasonable application of Waller. That Martinez had worked in the same area as a uniformed policeman prior to going undercover, putting him at risk regardless of the closure as noted by the trial court, does not undermine his safety concerns to the point of rendering the closure unreasonable.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 142 F.3d 538, 538
citation_a.parenthetical: where closure was brief and testimony was corroborative, "limited likelihood that undercover officer's safety would be prejudiced ... had sufficient weight in the balance"
citation_a.sentence: See Brown v. Artuz, 283 F.3d 492, 501-02 (2d Cir.2002) (despite officer’s dual status as both a non-undercover arresting investigator and an undercover in certain areas, closure did not involve an unreasonable application of Waller); see also Brown, 142 F.3d at 538 (where closure was brief and testimony was corroborative, “limited likelihood that undercover officer’s safety would be prejudiced ... had sufficient weight in the balance”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 283 F.3d 492, 501-02
citation_b.parenthetical: despite officer's dual status as both a non-undercover arresting investigator and an undercover in certain areas, closure did not involve an unreasonable application of Waller
citation_b.sentence: See Brown v. Artuz, 283 F.3d 492, 501-02 (2d Cir.2002) (despite officer’s dual status as both a non-undercover arresting investigator and an undercover in certain areas, closure did not involve an unreasonable application of Waller); see also Brown, 142 F.3d at 538 (where closure was brief and testimony was corroborative, “limited likelihood that undercover officer’s safety would be prejudiced ... had sufficient weight in the balance”).