With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as implicating the constitutional guarantee”); Carson v. Fischer, 421 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[e]ven an unjustified closure may, in some circumstances, be so trivial as not to implicate the right to a public trial”); People v. Webb, 267 Ill. App. 3d 954, 959, 642 N.E.2d 871, 205 Ill. Dec. 6 (1994) (“the defendant’s right to a public trial was not violated” by a de minimis closure); People v. Woodward, 4 Cal. 4th 376, 384-86, 841 P.2d 954, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 434 (1992) (applying the “de minimis rationale” and concluding that the right to a public trial was not violated); State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 660-61 (Minn. 2001) (applying a “triviality standard” and concluding that no violation of the right to a public trial occurred); State v. Torres, 844 A.2d 155, 162 (R.I. 2004) (<HOLDING>). ¶32 Critically, courts that have found a

A: holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment
B: holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment
C: recognizing that the sixth amendment is not violated every time the public is excluded from a courtroom an unjustified closure may on its facts be so trivial as not to violate the sixth amendment guarantee
D: holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating
C.