Posted on 05/23/2005 9:57:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
Sounds like another "vital interest" that our esteemed legislators can spend a few billion tax dollars on, after all these devices sound expensive, but not to worry, we'll just raise taxes on the "rich".
After all every courthouse and every murder trial would have to comply, otherwise it just isn't fair, right?
I get it. There can be nothing about the way the accused is handled in court that could adversely affect the jury's perception of him.
But doesn't sitting at the defendant's table with a burly guard hovering nearby do that? Shoot, maybe we should issue the accused a latte and let him mingle with the spectators.
Pandora's box has been opened -- again.
The court ruled , if I understand correctly, that shackles and irons can sway a jury. The 1996 case involved a perp that entered a home and double tapped two people in the head, for $400. This isn't an issue about technology, this is an issue about defense lawyers and the ability to sway jurors and free murderers.
And this .. after the Atlanta shooting where the guy was not even handcuffed ..?? Outrageous. They don't care if another judge gets shot ..??
if they continue to let these felons out, or protect them insanely, then they reap what they sow, as the Atlanta judge found out.....
not meaning the judge deserved it, not him personally, but the general blase' attitude of judges today: they leave society so unprotected that its bound to come back at them or their families sooner or later.....
The accused have the right to confront their accusers in person. That's one of the basic tenets of the American legal system. Only if the accused threatens the safety of others or disrupts the process of the court repeatedly can the accused be removed from the courtroom and put in a cell with observation gear.
Think about how bad it would be if you were wrongly arrested for an assault and you were not allowed to be in the courtroom, in good clothes to defend yourself. It has been proven that appearing in jail uniform or by a/v link from a cell usually results in a conviction; too bad for you that the prosecutor was an eloquent attorney, since you weren't there to look shocked or dismayed, you were found guilty and sent to jail.
He must have been fighting for justice.. /sarcasm off
Wrong end of the horse!!!
I should also point out the following item in the Constitution:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This ruling, as distasteful as it is to some, is the only one possible according to the law. Visible shackles and leg irons can lead to a prejudiced jury, even before testimony has been given. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Rehnquist was at the Capitl Medical Clinic today. I don't know if he weighed in on this. Can he vote if it is not a tie?
Usually, the bailiffs are up near the judge and jury, not by the defendant. If one is posted in a corner of the court near the defendant, there's usually one in the opposite corner of the courtroom by the prosecution as well - the burly guards do NOT hover over the accused.
There's 200 years of precedent here.... Shackles and irons were only permitted because they used to be the only way to control an unruly defendant, and in many cases they were covered or otherwise made unobtrusive so as not to sway the jury before the testimony ever begins. Technology has far surpassed that - stun belts are relatively cheap, they're far more effective than most shackles (and they can't be easily used to garotte an attorney or guard), and the jury doesn't even know that the accused has one on.
Funny how that can be when murder defendants have been shackled throughout American history. You must be finding this in an 'emanation' or a 'penumbra', eh?
Visible shackles and leg irons can lead to a prejudiced jury, even before testimony has been given.
No moreso than the fact that the individual is on trial on murder charges. Shoot, under your 'reasoning', anything could be ruled 'prejudicial'.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Such a ruling takes the Judiciary one more rung down in the public confidence.
I think we should stick 'em in a small cage and suspend it from the ceiling.
Far too much work, and it gets in the way of the jerking knees, don'cha'know?
"be confronted with the witnesses against him;"
Okay then. How about a "crotch shocker", similar to the tazer under the perp's Brooks Brothers attire and put a invisible dog fence around the jury, audience, and judge. Nobody can see anything, no undo persuasion, or perceptive guilt. ;)
Well, now we know how little sanity is left on the SCOTUS. I continue to pray for the time to speedily come when GWB can appoint a little more.
I did read Thomas's dissent. The majority and minority opinions are pretty much in agreement on the law. Thomas, however, thinks that the trial court would have been justified in shackeling the defendant in this particular case based upon the factors that both the majority and the minority opinions say the lower court should have considered. The problem with Justice Thomas's position is that nothing in the trial record indicates that the trial court judge actually considered those factors. In other words, 7 of the 9 judges decided the case based upon the factors that the lower court actually considered in deciding to shackel the defendant as reflected in the trial court transcript of the sentencing proceedings; and 2 of the 9 judges decided the case based not upon the factors that the trial court actually considered, but rather, upon what the court could have considered. Seems to me that in this particular case, Thomas and Scalia are playing the role of activist jurists to reach a result that is just, although not supported by the law or the facts.
Perhaps we should start making arrangements for these same defendants to be present in the Supreme Court when their cases are argued there. Might give a few of them a different, and perhaps more realistic, perspective.
It is easy enough to imprison all defendants in a secure courtroom area, so that they can both participate in their trial and be under control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.