Court Bans Shackling Of Murder Defendants

[scottkursk]

hat 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.

That's right. I remember the case now. It reminds me of the SEC case against Lew Holtz the Notre Dame coach for insider trading. He "overheard" two alumnis discussing a merger on the front row of a football game and "reasonably" assumed that since they were is such a public venue that said information was public. Yeah right. So now there is the Lew Holtz clause in our securities training when we discuss insider information and our public disclosure rules.

It helps to be coach of a winning team sometimes.

[jrs]

There was a case in Northern Virginia a few years back where a man walking down the street pulled out a knife and stabbed a little boy to death for no reason. After he was caught, it became apparent that he was so paranoid that he thought that even his own defense attorneys were conspiring against him. One day, in open court he attacked his own attorney with his hands.

A person like that is so dangerous that shackles are necessary even if he is not armed and the guards are armed.

[Capitalism Forever]

risk poisoning the integrity of the process.

In what way could shackles poison the integrity of the process?

[scottkursk]

In what way could shackles poison the integrity of the process?

It's not the process itself per se that is being poisoned, it's the jury's judgement of the accused. As you've seen from my previous posts, I've got absolutely no problem shackling a seriously dangerous or obstructive defendant. The case in question was the defendant had not shown a reasonable reason, by the courts definition, for being shackled at trial. Yes, he was a convicted killer and is by definition a very bad guy. However, the court ruled that since the defendant had not shown a significant level of threat to the court or the proceedings or any people or proceedings involved etc, the shackles were unduly influenced the jury into potenially leaning towards the death penalty.

FYI, the defendant is shackled at all times he's not at the table ie when he's being lead from holding to the courtroom, going to the bathroom, etc. It is just that when the jury is in the room that the defendant is unshackled. Even if the defendant has made intimations of being disruptive, the court will generally station a deputy close by and make the threats I mentioned in my previous posts.

The shackles can and do have a very direct effect on the outcome of deliberations of jurors. It's the same reason that defendants, even if they are remanded into custody or aren't able to make bail are allowed to dress in street clothes because wearing prison stripes to a trial, no matter how inocent a person is, will scew your chances for getting a fair trial.

[Groovenstein]

In what way could shackles poison the integrity of the process?

1. We are talking only about visible shackles. Shackles that cannot be seen by the sentencing jury are fine by me.

2. We are talking about different sentences being available. I don't know if every identical conviction (by identical I mean a conviction for the same crime in the same degree) should carry an identical sentence. That's an argument I'm willing to hear if that is what you think. But as of now, different sentences are available. That's why they have the sentencing hearing.

3. We are talking about juries that are not always objective. I don't have any hard core research, but the information I've encountered in school and elsewhere suggests that juries don't always make their decisions the way they should.

4. Since juries are not always objective, procedural safeguards are necessary to minimize the chances for them to be nonobjective. Again, I haven't done any of my own research, but it doesn't seem outrageous to me that, to a nonobjective person, a shackled defendant/convict seems more guilty/dangerous than one that isn't shackled, and thus more deserving of an unfavorable verdict/sentence.

5. As of now, I can think of two valid exceptions to an invisible shackle rule: consent and danger.

a. If a convict consents to being shackled at his sentencing hearing, fine. This might seem like it wouldn't happen, but I've heard from friends who've heard from practicing lawyers about defendants/convicts doing some silly stuff. It's usually along the lines of clothing or strategic decisions. I've also been to a couple criminal trials myself and the defendants haven't exactly helped their own causes. Weird haircuts, nasty clothing, etc.

b. I don't know what the standard should be for the danger exception, but I agree with the Court that there should be one. A defendant/convict who presents a threat to those in the courtroom can't rightfully claim that those in danger can't protect themselves.

Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?