Court Bans Shackling Of Murder Defendants

[Capitalism Forever]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stor...10?OpenDocument

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court, brushing aside warnings by two justices that it was jeopardizing courthouse safety, ruled Monday it is unconstitutional to force capital murder defendants to appear before juries in chains and shackles.

[...]Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that shackling indicates to juries "that court authorities consider the offender a danger to the community."

"It also almost inevitably affects adversely the jury's perception of the character of the defendant,"

It is evil enough to hate the good for being the good. But how bad do you have to be to love the evil for being the evil ?

[JMeganSnow]

Here's an alternative: make them appear before the jury in a big plastic box that has holes in it, like they use for poisonous snakes at the zoo. Or, even better, put the JURY, the JUDGE, and all the observers in big plastic boxes and let the CRIMINALS wander around loose. Just like researchers do when they go to observe sharks.

How about Velcro straps? Eight-point restraints?!

I'm sorry, but if a negative impression is the criterion here, then they shouldn't be able to bring in the alleged perp at ALL . . . after all, being a defendant in a criminal case might give the jury a bad impression! They can't even refer to the guy by name!

Somebody shoot me . . .

[DavidOdden]

I'm sorry, but if a negative impression is the criterion here, then they shouldn't be able to bring in the alleged perp at ALL . . . after all, being a defendant in a criminal case might give the jury a bad impression!

How about if they limit the use of shackles to defendants who are guilty?

[Groovenstein]

Let's not decide the sky is falling just yet. I'm not saying this isn't silly--I don't know yet. But more analysis is definitely required before we can condemn this as ridiculous.

Two brief preliminary matters. One, I am going to refer to the Court's actual opinion which can be seen at the address below. Second, because I will be quoting a lot, remember that federal court opinions are the law, and thus are not copyrightable.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...pdf/04-5293.pdf

Let's look at what exactly the Court decided. From p. 3 (all page references are the PDF pages):

"We hold that the Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during the penalty phase, as it forbids their use during the guilt phase, unless that use is 'justified by an essential state interest'--such as the interest in courtroom security--specific to the defendant on trial." (emphasis in original)

Elaborating on the "essential state interest," the Court stated on pp. 12-13:

"The constitutional requirement, however, is not absolute. It permits the judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, to take account of special circumstances, including security concerns, that may call for shackling. In so doing, it accommodates the important need to protect the courtroom and its occupants."

The Court did limit this on p. 13:

"But any such determination must be case specific; that is to say, it should reflect particular concerns, say special security needs or escape risks, related to the defendant on trial."

I agree with David that any shackling should be limited to guilty defendants. I add that I think a similar exception in the guilt phase for safety concerns is appropriate.

Keep in mind that the Court's opinion only applies to visible shackles. The convict can still be restrained outside the jury's viewing. Maybe our police officer friend can shed some light on what restraints are currently available or could be made that would accommodate this purpose. Leg irons?

Also, further research is necessary to determine what kind of discretion judges will be given in making special circumstance determinations. If a highly deferential, abuse of discretion standard is used, that would give the judges a bit of leeway.

Without knowing what restraint systems are available, how effective they are, etc., I offer a general principle. If you have two equally effective restraint systems that cost the same, and one is not visible to the jury, use that one. Even this leaves plenty of unanswered questions (e.g., what if one is significantly more expensive? less effective but still maybe good enough?), but it's a good place to start.

For these reasons, as of right now, I don't think making a convicted defendant dress a certain way when sentence is being considered is appropriate. It's something that a jury should not consider, but unfortunately might. If you're worried about lighter sentences, I think the way to address that is legislatively, by challenging the sentencing guidelines, etc.

[scottkursk]

Here's an alternative: make them appear before the jury in a big plastic box that has holes in it, like they use for poisonous snakes at the zoo. 

Somebody shoot me . . .

Actually yes, that is what is being discussed right now. For a wide variety of reasons a defendant can be shackled. 99.99% of the time, it's because they are really very bad people with history's of being bad people. The other .01% of the time it's because a bailif or other member of the court staff did something that caused them to react negatively towards them (whether hitting, spitting, or cursing) that can cause a person to be shackled like something out of Silence of the Lambs. Now, mind you, normally telling a bailif to go XYZ themselves won't cause a person to be put into a shock belt and face mask for the length of a trial, but then as the law currently stands that is pretty much up to the discretion of the judge.

Obviously, in the case of Howard Roark, he'd be considered a dangerous unrepentant terrorist that could flip out at the drop of a hat and would need to be shackled and covered with a shock belt to be taken down "just in case". It's total crap I agree but it's the sad state the court system has devovled into today. The state of the current jury system is such that the jury is the dumbest group possible (see other threads about jury selection) and would automatically assume that such a person is dangerous and guilty.

Sadly, the extremely dangerous and psycho people out there who would kill people and cause problems are going to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being put in restraints. Problem is, a semi-decent lawyer will be able to go in front of an appelate court and use the restraints to get the restraints used as prejudicial towards polluting the jury pool against the defendant.

Actually though, they do have a point in that juries that have been poled after deliberations have been found to assume that people that are shackled are guilty with an insanely high rate compared to those without restraints. My fiance's law school participated in an experiment where they tried the exact same scripted mock cases with the only exceptions being a defendant being chained to the chair during the mock trial. The results of the mock trial were significantly different.

So, it behoves DA's to do whatever it takes to get defendants shackled whenever possible (not that many don't deserve it, please don't misinterpret my comments that I'm saying they don't) but given the adversarial system as it currently is, a win is a win regardless of what it takes. Personally, I've got no problem in a person being shackled if they deserve it, it's just that I know a 1/2 or even 1/4 decent lawyer will get their conviction tossed on appeal because of it.

[dougclayton]

I agree with David that any shackling should be limited to guilty defendants. 

Perhaps I misunderstood David but I think he was pointing out that, insofar as the court is concerned, all defendants are innocent of the accused crime until the trial is over.

[Groovenstein]

Perhaps I misunderstood David but I think he was pointing out that, insofar as the court is concerned, all defendants are innocent of the accused crime until the trial is over.

Perhaps that's what he meant. I thought he was referring to the sentencing phase. If he wasn't, then I hereby remove the part about agreeing with him, but the rest remains because it makes sense. There is a guilt phase and a sentencing phase. My comment pertained to defendants who had been found guilty but not yet sentenced.

[scottkursk]

Perhaps I misunderstood David but I think he was pointing out that, insofar as the court is concerned, all defendants are innocent of the accused crime until the trial is over.

Actually, the case that SCOTUS ruled on was during the penalty phase of the trial, not the guilt or innocence phase. Really. The jury already ruled the guy was guilty but whether he deserved the death penalty or not was in question. It was the presense of the shackles and shock belts that caused, as the arugment went, that caused the jury to "assume" that the state was right that this was one bad dude and that he was an imminent threat to the life and liberty of the people of the republic. Therefore, the only way they could legitimatley rule was to give him the penalty of death.

The case in question, the defendant nobody argues wasn't guilty of being a murdering piece of crap that deserves to be treated as such. What the disagreement was how he deserved to be treated ala' Hannnibal Lecter or as Lyle and/or Eric Menendedez at sentnecing.

The court really couldn't prove their case that this guy in particular proved to be an imminent threat to life and liberty of the court and the people's contained theirin so therefore the benefit of the doubt had to be given to him. Personally, I disagree with this since he's a convicted murderer, he waived his rights fully and should be treated like the subhuman animal that he is.

But as I said in the previous post, a 1/4 good attorney will get the sentence at least commuted based on the shackles and the presumptions by the courts that the juries are full of retarded morons that couldn't think their way off of jury duty.

[Groovenstein]

Personally, I disagree with this since he's a convicted murderer, he waived his rights fully and should be treated like the subhuman animal that he is.

That's why he should be punished. I agree that he's garbage. I disagree with your conclusion.

Even though he may have forfeited his right to live, that doesn't mean the justice system should stop worrying about objective procedures. So long as the same crimes can receive different sentences, rules need to be in place to ensure objectivity. If you think that the same crime should receive the same sentence, I think you should seek this change through the legislature.

Remember, too, that when looking at a court ruling you have to look at exactly what the court holds and exactly what procedure remains for the case. Just because a finding favors one party doesn't mean that party is in the clear. The case has been remanded for further proceedings. I'm guessing this means he'll get another sentencing hearing. Maybe they'll decide to fry him after all, maybe not.

[softwareNerd]

Question for the lawyers here: Are juries typically given an instruction or reminder or warning or whatever to disregard the appearance of the defendant to the extent that it does not have bearing on the case?

[DavidOdden]

Perhaps that's what he meant.  I thought he was referring to the sentencing phase.  If he wasn't, then I hereby remove the part about agreeing with him, but the rest remains because it makes sense.

Well, to be honest I wasn't hep to the fact that this was sentencing-phase. However, I maintain that even in the sentencing phase, it is improper to visibly restrain a defendant without compelling reason, especially when the purpose of the hearing is for the jury to decide whether they will put the defendant to death. The security issues can be resolved with non-evident restraints, if it really is necessary to restrain a person (and there is no evidence that it was). What the jury has to decide is whether the guy meets those criteria described under law for executing convicted people, and as you know (or will know), juries are adrift, having no idea what this "mitigation" stuff is about.

Even though the prosecution makes defamatory statements about the defendant, it is clearly understand that that is his job. The supposition is that the court itself is neutral. Imagine what would happen if a judge charged the jury in the penalty phase announced "It has been found that that the defendant is a cold-blooded murderer, deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. He is a vile beast a stain on society, and we would be better off with him dead. Your responsibility is to determine if he should be executed, serving the interests of justice, or imprisoned for life, thus rewarding him for his crime. Only you can decide". Visible shackling by the supposedly neutral court is one of the clearest signs I can imagine that tells the jury -- 12 clueless men -- that he has so far passed the "danger to society" threshhold that he must be shackled even during this proceding.

I would be more sanguine about the shackles if there were no jury, or an actually qualified and trained jury.

[scottkursk]

Question for the lawyers here: Are juries typically given an instruction or reminder or warning or whatever to disregard the appearance of the defendant to the extent that it does not have bearing on the case?

In some cases a judge can make special orders in the instructions to the jury if they feel it is pertinant. A good example would be if you are trying a person that is an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim woman in a Hajib in a backwater town, the judge would absolutely have to instruct them to ignore the "odd" appearance. Also, they may find it necesary to explain that certain cultural factors can influence people's actions and cause people to behave in ways that we may see as wrong.

The lawyers aren't allowed to mention things like appearance at all under usual circumstances. You are not allowed to point out that the defendant is wearing the only suit in the world that they own and that they usually wear "gang banger" type clothing. Or you can't mention that they always dress like steretypical skinheads. Is that what you are asking?

However, what you can do is get find a photo or some public evidence of them in their most unflattering form and keep that in full view as often as possible. Also, in the skinhead example if they squirm in the seat you can ask if they are comfortable, they might mention it's their shoes, which would lead to asking what sort of shoes they normally wear, "oh gee you wear Doc Marten skinhead boots usually" and you can see where it goes from there. Then the defendent opens the door to a whole line of questioning they didn't intend to but just did. Whoops.

Works the same for someone's past. That is why a defendant won't testify if there is a chance the prosecution can turn something against them. And it is pretty easy to do.

[Groovenstein]

I'm not scoring any clarity points today, that's for sure. Sorry for my poor performance.

David, I said I took back the part about agreeing with you if you weren't talking about sentencing because if you weren't talking about sentencing and I was, we wouldn't actually be agreeing. I didn't want to falsely suggest we were in agreement if we weren't talking about the same thing.

I agree with your most recent post. Hopefully my position is now clear. I will try to be clearer in the future.

[softwareNerd]

In some cases a judge can make special orders in the instructions to the jury if they feel it is pertinant. ...

The lawyers aren't allowed to mention things like appearance at all under usual circumstances.

It seems that under normal circumstances, the judge will not remind a jury to disregard how a defendant looks in the courtroom but will disallow discussion about how a defendant looks outside the courtroom. To the extent that a defendant's appearance is relevant, is does seems biased to let the "courtroom look" prevail over the normal look.

[DavidOdden]

To the extent that a defendant's appearance is relevant, is does seems biased to let the "courtroom look" prevail over the normal look.

In discussing a paper on the flaws of the Bronston truth standard (63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 373), we concluded that many defendants commit perjury when they take the stand, being in a false cleaned-up and suited state.

[Hal]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stor...10?OpenDocument

It is evil enough to hate the good for being the good. But how bad do you have to be to love the evil for being the evil ?

Please explain precisely what benefit you think shackling defendents would have, other than satisfying whatever bizzare authoritarian fetishes certain people might have. Do we currently have a problem with defendents escaping from court during their trials that I am unware of?

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[Capitalism Forever]

Please explain precisely what benefit you think shackling defendents would have, other than satisfying whatever bizzare authoritarian fetishes certain people might have.

We are talking about CONVICTED MURDERERS who could be about receive the death penalty. These people are known to have killed before and have little to lose.

[Hal]

We are talking about CONVICTED MURDERERS who could be about receive the death penalty. These people are known to have killed before and have little to lose.

a) We are talking about defendants in a court case. If they are 'known to have killed before', why are we wasting money giving them a trial?

Even if they are convicted murderers, so what? Has any convicted murderer ever escaped from court due to not being shackled? I'm asking you what you think it would achieve (ie why you support it), not why these people have surrendered their right not to wear shackles. I mean we could make convicted murderers wear jester's costumes and pink hats, but I'm not entirely sure what the point would be.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[Capitalism Forever]

We are talking about defendants in a court case. If they are 'known to have killed before', why are we wasting money giving them a trial?

The specific case that prompted the SCOTUS decision was the penalty phase of a murder trial. The defendant had already been convicted and now he was in court for sentencing.

Even if they are convicted murderers, so what? Has any convicted murderer ever escaped from court due to not being shackled? I'm asking you what you think it would achieve (ie why you support it)

It protects the other people in the courtroom in case the convict got violent. This is why I wrote "These people are known to have killed before and have little to lose."

Edited May 25, 2005 by Capitalism Forever

[DavidOdden]

Has any convicted murderer ever escaped from court due to not being shackled?

Well, recently an accused rapist in Georgia who was not shackled did escape from court, killing a judge, a deputy, and a court reporter. Omar Reed was convicted and subsequently escaped, but that was apparently moments after the conviction. I don't know if there's a case where a person previously convicted of murder has escaped from the actual trial, and anyhow even if he had and hadn't been shackled, you could say it wasn't strictly due to not being shackled (perhaps it was just inattentive guards).

[Groovenstein]

"These people are known to have killed before and have little to lose."

CF, this is a theory that makes sense on its face, but I think a lot more proof is required to determine that someone is so dangerous that we need to risk poisoning the integrity of the process. Do you have anything beyond this theory to back you up? Maybe a study showing, for example, that at sentencing hearings 89% of capital convicts get violent?

I have no sympathy for such people, but it is important that sentencing be conducted in accordance with objective principles, for the same reason the gathering of evidence, indictments, trial, etc. need to be so conducted.

[The Wrath]

This makes perfect sense to me. It goes along with the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty." As long as they don't have weapons with them and as long as there are court security officials who do have weapons, I don't see how it lessens the safety of the court.

[scottkursk]

In discussing a paper on the flaws of the Bronston truth standard (63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 373), we concluded that many defendants commit perjury when they take the stand, being in a false cleaned-up and suited state.

If I remember from reading Bronston, that more deals with truth ala' Clinton standard of what is the truth sort of thing. Bronston was just lying out his hat from what I remember. He was deliberately concelaing the truth when specifically asked questions as opposed to just altering appearances.

He was hiding money offshore in the Bahamas or Seyshells or something through fake companies and said that he himself didn't have any offshore accounts though he was the sole owner of the companies holding the funds. Sure, that was a load of crap and he was perjuring himself.

I think what we were talking about was more a person dressing or acting in a more civil manner than they normally would in the real world.

[scottkursk]

Please explain precisely what benefit you think shackling defendents would have, other than satisfying whatever bizzare authoritarian fetishes certain people might have. Do we currently have a problem with defendents escaping from court during their trials that I am unware of?

Because of all the problems it presents with the appellate process, a judge will allow it only in extreme cases where the defendant presents a clear and present danger to the people in the proceedings. In some cases, if a defendant is infected with certain deseases, they have to wear clear face masks here in Houston courts so that they can't spit at anyone and infect someone. It looks weird but it also prevents people from deliberately biting someone. Which happens more often than you'd care to believe.

Usually, if a defendant is agitated, they reces and then threaten them with something like being put in a holding cell with less than pleasant cell mates, being put on a restrictive diet, or otherwise being treated like crap comparitively speaking. That usually puts even violent people in line, especially people that have been in the system before.

Since courts aren't allowed to have defendents tried via remote video feed, they have to be present. Some defendants are so violent and or disruptive that if their antics were allowed to continue, the trial could either not proceed or would become a total farce.

[DavidOdden]

Bronston was just lying out his hat from what I remember. He was deliberately concelaing the truth when specifically asked questions as opposed to just altering appearances.

Well, B had a personal account in Switzerland, and his answer was non-responsive since he only answered about company accounts and not personal accounts. There is no evidence of dishonesty on his part, although it's possible he was trying to hide the personal account. The point of that article was that the Bronston perjury standard fails to do what it is supposed to do, because it allows liars to be literally true and yet highly deceptive, as long as they don't literally lie. That would extends to attempting to deceive by giving a false impression. It is protected under the Bronston standard; Clinton was protected under that standard as well.