Except as otherwise provided herein, upon motion of the defendant or one standing in the position of a defendant, even if known by another name and hereinafter called defendant, the court may consider excluding the general public from all or a portion of a proceeding at which:
§ 6-202.Grounds for closure; waiver.
Article 2: Closing Hearings to the Public · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceSection 6-202 limits motions to close a hearing to two specific situations — disputes over a confession’s voluntariness and motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence — and requires the court to ask an unrepresented defendant on the record whether they want the hearing open before treating a closure as invoked.
Full Text of § 6-202
(A) the voluntariness of a confession may be seriously disputed and the admissibility of the confession will be a material issue either at the preliminary proceeding then before the court, or at a subsequent hearing, including the trial on the merits, and the court finds based upon evidence adduced that permitting the general public to be present during such proceeding is likely to result in substantially injuring or damaging the accused's right to a fair proceeding and that no other reasonable alternative exists to assure the defendant of a fair trial, or
(B) the defendant is seeking to suppress evidence allegedly obtained illegally and the court finds based upon evidence adduced that permitting the general public to be present during such proceeding is likely to result in substantially injuring or damaging the accused's right to a fair proceeding and that no other reasonable alternative exists to assure the defendant of a fair trial.
(C) If the court believes that by permitting the general public to be present at either of the hearings noted in § 6-202(A) or (B), the defendant may be denied a fair trial, and the defendant has not moved for closure, the court shall inquire of the defendant, on the record, whether the defendant desires to hold all or a part of such proceeding with the public present. If the defendant elects to hold such hearing with the public present, the court shall so proceed after noting the defendant's election on the record. If the defendant, however, elects to close all or a portion of such proceeding and so advises the court, it shall be as if the defendant has so moved and all of the provisions of these guidelines shall apply.
Plain-English Summary
Section 6-202 narrows the door to closure that Section 6-201 opens only a crack. A defendant — or someone standing in a defendant’s position — may move to exclude the public from all or part of a proceeding in two situations: when the voluntariness of a confession is seriously disputed and its admissibility will matter at the hearing or later at trial, or when the defendant is seeking to suppress illegally obtained evidence. In both situations, the court must find, based on evidence, that public presence is likely to substantially injure the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding and that no reasonable alternative would protect that right.
Part (C) adds a safeguard for defendants who have not moved for closure themselves. If the court believes an open hearing on one of these two topics might cost the defendant a fair trial, the court must ask the defendant directly, on the record, whether they want the proceeding held with the public present. If the defendant chooses an open hearing, the court proceeds openly and notes that choice on the record. But if the defendant instead elects to close all or part of the proceeding, the rule treats that election as if the defendant had formally moved for closure — triggering all the procedures in the rest of Article 2.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of hearings can a defendant ask to close under this rule?
Two types: a hearing where the voluntariness of a confession is seriously disputed and will matter to its admissibility, and a hearing on a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence.
What must the court find before granting a defendant’s motion to close one of these hearings?
That evidence shows public presence is likely to substantially injure the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding, and that no other reasonable alternative would protect that right.
What happens if a defendant has not moved to close the hearing but the court thinks an open hearing could hurt the defendant’s fair trial right?
The court must ask the defendant, on the record, whether they want the proceeding held with the public present, and proceed according to the defendant’s choice.
If a defendant elects to close the hearing after the court’s inquiry, what happens next?
The election is treated as if the defendant had formally moved for closure, and all the provisions of Article 2’s closure guidelines apply from that point.
Can someone other than a named defendant invoke this rule?
Yes. The rule extends to anyone standing in the position of a defendant, even under another name.
Does this rule let a court close a hearing on its own initiative without any defendant involvement?
No. The rule is built around a defendant’s motion or election; the court’s role in Part (C) is to inquire of the defendant, not to close a proceeding independently of the defendant’s wishes.
Source & verification. Section text is
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Judicial Branch, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Nebraska. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: grounds to close a hearing nebraskaclosing suppression hearing to publicconfession voluntariness closed hearingdefendant motion to close courtroomcourt asks defendant about closure