Court bans shackling of murder defendants

AP - StL Today ^ | May 23, 2005 | Gina Holland

[Ol' Sparky]

Apparently, the justices didn't take consider this when they made their ruling:

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland W. Barnes told attorneys Thursday that he was concerned rape suspect Brian Nichols could pose a danger if he was convicted, the suspect's attorney said Friday evening. The judge pledged to bolster security for the remainder of the trial after a sheriff's deputy found two makeshift weapons in Nichols' shoes on Wednesday

The judge and two others were killed Friday after Nichols wrestled a gun away from a sheriff's deputy then went into a courtroom and shot Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau.

As he escaped, Nichols fatally shot deputy Sgt. Hoyt Teasley, who was pursuing him outside the building.

This liberalism for you. To politically-correct, we must allow female deputies to guard dangerous criminals, but we can't shackle the dangerous criminal because our courts won't allow it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

This was noted by an earlier poster, but needs to be highlighted to show the logical idiocy of this decision. From the article:

The high court had already held that people on trial could be shackled only if prosecutors had a strong argument for it. Monday's decision involves sentencing hearings in capital murder cases.

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," he wrote.

If they've already found the defendant guilty and are now moving onto the sentencing phase, hasn't the jury already 'perceived' that he/she/it is not only capable of murder, but are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she/it committed such?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Now all they need to do is require all suspects be guarded by 5', slightly overweight grandmothers! That will do the trick.

[Evolution]

The court also ruled, however, that shackeling is allowed if the trial/sentencing court makes certain findings specific to the defendant/convicted person i.e., that he or she has a history of violent behavior while in custody and that the failure to shackel the person raises legitimate security concerns.

What qualifies as legitimate security concerns?

The case in question the person was ALREADY found GUILTY!

[thoughtomator]

Doesn't this just make it inevitable that one of these unshackled prisoners will take out one of their own?

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

The court also ruled, however, that shackeling is allowed if the trial/sentencing court makes certain findings specific to the defendant/convicted person i.e., that he or she has a history of violent behavior while in custody and that the failure to shackel the person raises legitimate security concerns.

When a defendant has been convicted of murder, I think legitimate security concerns already exist. Plus, I would think selectively shackeling only some murderers will cause more problems with juries than restraining all murderers equally.

[wallcrawlr]

Are we on the honor system now?

[johnb838]

Yep, the whole thing stinks -- puts the entire courtroom in danger, but in typical limousine liberal fashion it's nothing the Supremes have to worry about.

They do have the stun belt, but some might be able to get out of it, and who knows, the court's next step might be to rule that cruel and unusual. Bastards.

[Labyrinthos]

Read the court's decision. This not a new rule, but one that goes back to the 18th Century.

[B4Ranch]

Drape the defendants table with cloth,put an anchor bolt in the floor and shackle the defendants feet prior to the jury entering the courtroom.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Read the court's decision. This not a new rule, but one that goes back to the 18th Century.

Slavery goes back a lot farther than that.

[Truth29]

What constitutes legitimate security concerns. This decision and the decision process will be the basis for additional appeals. The endless appeal process is already crushing justice in the USA. This will just make it worse and provide employment for even more attorneys.

[CFC__VRWC]

The happy unshackled defendent shot the judge and other court officials dead.

But we all know that the blame for that lies with Tom DeLay and other conservatives who dare to criticize judges in public, right?

[AmishDude]

Can you explain why this only applies to capital sentencing hearings and not to all trials. What's the court's logic there?

[cjohnson7771]

And in North Las Vegas Dentention Center last month... an inmate that "should have been" shackled was not. While being escorted by a CO, he pulled away and beat the daylights out of a 19 year old who was on a work order because of traffic violations. The CO who did not shackle the inmate was immediately relieved of his job and a lawsuit is pending against the city North Las Vegas on behalf of the 19 year old.

[cjohnson7771]

And in North Las Vegas Dentention Center last month... an inmate that "should have been" shackled was not. While being escorted by a CO, he pulled away and beat the daylights out of a 19 year old who was on a work order because of traffic violations. The CO who did not shackle the inmate was immediately relieved of his job and a lawsuit is pending against the city North Las Vegas on behalf of the 19 year old. Go figure.

[johnb838]

I maintain that you can never predict what someone will do once they have the power, and that trying to appoint different types of personalities to the court will not fix the problem. We are having to fix something that's been broken for over 200 years now, and it's not going to be easy to overcome that much tradition, but we simply MUST break Marbury vs. Madison or we are toast.

Sometimes I think we should get a couple of amendments going:

1) a Right-to-Life amendment (Sanctorum Vivitatem), outlawing abortion, human experimentation & exploitation (harvesting), and euthanazia, and
2) a Limitation of Jurisdiction (Limitatus Juris) that would abolish judicial review of anything related to anything outside that which is explicitly spelled out in the constitution, and would set a retirement age of say, 75 on federal judges so we don't get these sick, old, senile coots in there going batsh!t crazy.

Not that we could get these passed...

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

The libs on the Supreme Court just want to get rid of the death penalty entirely. That's clear from several of their recent rulings. Throwing the whole system into chaos is a way to potentially influence lawmakers to scrap capital punishment.

[Fishtalk]

Okay. I'm going to give this my best.

Beginning with the fact that I *thought* this was always the rule. Perhaps just in a few states?

At any rate, I distinctly recall a time when defendants were brought into court in loud orange jailsuits then at some point they showed up in court with ill-fitting suits but civilian clothes nonetheless.

Witness the media savvy Mark Geragos. Did he not dress Susan McDougal in bright orange with leg and hand shackles? Then he paraded her back and forth in front of the media. Court officials shrugged and admitted there was no need for the shackles; that this was Geragos' show.

Hey, Geragos did this because he KNOWS how to play to the public. He's a lousy lawyer but he knows what hits the busy viewers and he knows what does not.

So why not, so long as there is one miniscule molecule of a fraction of a possibility that one juror might have his or her mind altered by the sight of a shackled human, have the defendants all wear civilian clothes?

Safety? Yes I know about the Nichols guy. But come on. There's got to be a way what with this being the twentieth century and everything, to configure the guy with something that will stop any effort to violence.

I was reading about stun guns earlier. Put a couple of electrodes behind his elbows and behind his knees. Have all entrances from outside to courtroom constantly monitored and give that monitor the button to push to shove a jolt right where the defendant is most immobilized by the shock. Can't do much without your hands and legs. I understand I oversimplify but you get the point.

Consider the visual on another level. Imagine a mighty Roman warrior, all decked out in his pleated skirt of armor, steel helmet on his head topped with bright red feathers. Imagine a common pickpocket brough before him, clothes in tatters, ball and chain draggin behind.

I mean the shackles are but a less dramatic reactment of this imaginery roman scene.

I guess what I'm saying here is, assuming you accept my argument about technology and courtroom safety, that is it really such a big deal? If one doesn't buy my technology argument, and I can't imagine why not as it's certainly within the realm, than that is the only real argument againt.

It doesn't matter the defendent's crime, be it murderer or shoplifter. When human beings are put in the position of judging others all things should be equal, truthful and fair in terms of human to human.

I'm not being a troll here. I mean you pick your battles, right?

Is this really one of them?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Very nice. This is easy for the Supreme Court to say, they don't have to deal with dangerous psychopaths that have nothing to lose and are just waiting for a chance to attack a cop or judge.

You heard it here, the Supreme Court doesn't care about the judge (among other law enforcement officials) that got killed by that nutcase in Atlanta.