“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In what way could shackles poison the integrity of the process?
We are talking only about visible shackles. Shackles that cannot be seen by the sentencing jury are fine by me.
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.
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.
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.
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?