United States v. Paul Girard

── United States v. Paul Girard ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 24-2097 & 24-2148 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL GIRARD, a/k/a Bogus, Appellant in Appeal No. 24-2097 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KAREEM HARRY, a/k/a Crumbull, Appellant in Appeal No. 24-2148 On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Nos. 3:18-cr-00030-001, -007) District Judge: Hon. Timothy J. Savage Argued December 9, 2025 Before: HARDIMAN, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges  (Filed: May 26, 2026) ____________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Appellants Paul Girard and Kareem Harry were deprived of that right when their trial began with no public access to the courtroom, and again when federal marshals stationed outside the courtroom prevented their mothers from entering for several trial days. But neither Defendant objected to any of this, and they were afforded a fair trial. So we will affirm their judgments of conviction. I Girard was the head of a violent drug-trafficking enterprise in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The jury convicted him of 22 counts of drug, firearm, racketeering, and other charges. Harry was an armorer for the enterprise, and the jury convicted him of seven counts of racketeering and firearms charges. Their trial was conducted in March 2022 and began the day after the Chief Judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands issued an order “reinstat[ing] certain in-person proceedings” that had been suspended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See February 28, 2022 Order, Miscellaneous No. 2020-0001 at 1, ECF No. 36 on Dist. Ct. Dkt. 20-mc- 00001. Because the Virgin Islands had seen a “downward 2 trend” in infections, the Chief Judge ordered “incremental resumption of civil and criminal jury trials.” Id. at 4–5. But the order also “recognize[d]” that COVID-19’s “threat to public health and safety” and “unpredictability” required “precautionary and preventive measures” and “flexibility.” Id. at 2–3. Consistent with that order, the District Court provided an overflow room with an audiovisual feed of the proceedings for those who could not watch from the courtroom. The jury chose to sit in the jury box for the trial. After the jury was selected and before opening arguments, Girard’s lawyer asked the District Court “what accommodations ha[d] been made for the public to view th[e] trial.” Harry App. 293. Counsel also requested “that at least the defendant’s family be able to sit in th[e] courtroom” to “comply with the Constitution” and “give the defendant . . . moral support.” Id. The Court initially refused, but acceded to a request by Harry’s counsel that the jury be told about the overflow room. Later that same day, the Court informed the parties that it would allow some spectators into the courtroom the next day. The next morning, Harry’s lawyer observed that Harry’s mother was not in the courtroom. Counsel asked whether the District Court was “restricting who enters this courtroom.” Harry App. 524. The Court responded, “[a]bsolutely not,” id., and Harry’s lawyer inquired no further. Several days later, Harry’s lawyer noted that an article in a local newspaper had reported that the overflow room did not open to the public until around 10:00 a.m. during one of the previous trial days. The Court responded that the closure was “an inadvertent error” that would not happen again, and it noted that the courtroom had seats