Deck v. Missouri
Encyclopedia
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, was a 2005 Supreme Court Case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer
, the Supreme Court
held that is against due process
, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.
where his conviction and sentence was upheld. However, Deck was later granted a new penalty phase after he appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri on the grounds that he received “ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.”
The retry of Deck’s penalty phase began on April 29, 2003, where he was brought into court wearing shackles. The defense objected to Deck being visibly restrained stating that Deck’s behavior did not justify shackles. The defense stated the only justification for shackling Deck would have been if he caused a disturbance in the courtroom. However, he did not. The defense also suggested other measures that the court could have taken to ensure safety instead of shackling Deck. These measures included adding extra security guards to the courtroom, and having the people who wanted to sit in the gallery walk through metal detectors. However, the defense’s objections were overruled. Deck’s attorney’s once again objected during voir dire
. Deck’s defense thought that asking jurors if the shackles biased them was not enough to ensure that Deck would receive reliable sentencing. The court overruled the objection again stating “The objection that you’re making will be overruled. He has been convicted and will remain in legirons and belly chain.” The jury once again sentenced Deck to death.
Deck Appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri
arguing that the shackles infringed upon his right to due process
, equal protection, right to confront evidence against him, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
(prescribed from Amendments five
, six
, eight
and fourteen
). The Missouri Supreme Court held that the trial court had standing to impose security measures if it was necessary. The Supreme Court of Missouri stated that Deck had committed murder and that he would run if he had the chance. Additionally, the court ruled that there was “no record of the extent of the jury’s awareness of the restraints throughout the penalty phase.” The Missouri Supreme Court concluded by stating that it was not claimed that the shackles prevented Deck from participating in the trial and that no evidence has been put forth to prove that it did.
Deck specifically claimed that his right to right to due process,
prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, were violated. Deck’s counsel made it clear that there was no reason such as a court disturbance to permit such shackling. In Deck’s argument to the Supreme Court
, it was also argued that Deck’s 6th Amendment rights had been violated on the grounds of the Confrontation Clause
. Deck’s shackling told the jury that Deck was a dangerous person and was shackled to protect the people in the courtroom. Therefore, the jury had a picture in their mind that Deck was an awful person. Deck’s attorney’s referred to this idea as prejudice towards Deck. Deck’s counsel argued that this meant that the jury was influenced by arbitrary details in deciding Deck’s sentence, not just the presented facts. It was made clear that Deck could not cross-examine or defend against the idea of bias and prejudice against him. As a result his right to confront witnesses as stated in the 6th Amendment (as well as idea of an impartial jury) was violated by the shackles. Also, Deck’s counsel argued that the shackles violated the defendants’ rights that “give meaning to the defendant’s right to be present at his trial.” It was argued that the shackles limited Deck from freely conversing with his counsel, and that they prevented him from taking the stand to defend himself. The defense wrote that this would increase the chances of Deck being sentenced to death by the jury which made the shackling unconstitutional.
Additionally Deck argued that his 8th Amendment rights had been violated because of the idea of reliable sentencing. This also ties into the idea of a biased jury. According to justices Souter and Stevens’ concurring opinion in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, the “Eight Amendment requires provision of accurate sentencing information as an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die” (case from 1994). Deck’s attorney’s argued that since the jury considered arbitrary evidence, Deck's right to reliable sentencing had been violated.
It is important to note that Deck and his attorneys also argued about the burden of proof. Deck’s counsel believed that the bias created by the shackles put the burden of proof
on Deck and not the state. The defense argued that the state could not prove that the shackles did no harm. Ultimately, the defense felt that the shackling of Deck was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
, meaning shackling made a difference in the decision that the jury made. The defense argued that this alone was a violation against the constitution
and due process
.
brief was filed by Thomas H. Speedy Rice on behalf of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Whales and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
on behalf of Deck (petitioner).
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/Deck_final.pdf
In their brief, the Bar of Human Rights Committee and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
argued that the shackling of Deck was a human rights violation. In was also argued that the shackles violated due process
and common law
and that the shackles dimished courtroom dignity. Additionally, it was argued that the shackles contributed to self-incrimination, and prevented Deck from confronting witnesses against him.
A brief was filed by the state of California by “Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Catherine Chatman and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, by John W. Suthers, Interim Attorney General of Colorado.” Additionally, the Attorney Generals of the following filed briefs: “roy King of Alabama, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Steve Carter of Indiana."
reversed the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. The opinion, written by Justice Breyer, made it clear that shackling a defendant during the sentencing portion of a trial does violate the fifth
, sixth
, eight
, and fourteenth Amendments
of the Constitution
. The Supreme Court held that unless the shackling pertains to a specific defendant for specific state interests, the Constitution forbids the shackling of a defendant in the sentencing phase (as well as the guilty phase) of a trial.
How the Supreme Court Came to its Conclusion:
The Supreme Court
first noted that the law (historically) has prohibited the shackling of a defendant in the guilty-innocent phase of a trial. The court also noted shackling is only allowed when there is a “special need." The court explained that this concept is embedded in the law and that courts have followed this rule throughout history. The court noted that this rule was first written by William Blackstone
in his 18th Century Commentaries on England. Blackstone a politician, judge and jurist, wrote “it is laid down in our ancient books, that, though under an indictment of the highest nature, a defendant must be brought to the bar without irons, or any manner of shackles or bonds; unless there be evident danger of an escape.” Next, the court looked at more recent opinions to show that this rule relates to a defendant’s right to due process
. The court looked at the dictum
of three cases, Illinois v. Allen, Holbrook v. Flynn and Estelle v. Williams
. In Allen, the Court said that trial courts should only use shackles on defendants, during the guilty phase, as a “last resort.” In Holbrook, the court stated that shackling is “prejudicial” and should only be allowed when state interests are involved. Lastly, in Estelle, the court stated that making a defendant go to in trial wearing prison attire threatened the “fairness of the fact-finding process” and should only be allowed when “essential state policy” justifies it. The Court then established that these cases give acknowledgement to standards that are embedded in the Constitution and the law which governs in the United States
. The court then tried to determine is this rule also applies to the sentencing phase of a trial, not just the guilt-innocent portion.
The court established that in fact the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments prohibits the shackling of a defendant during the sentencing phase of a trial. The court made this determination by looking at important facts or legal standards. The court noted that shackling a defendant undermines the presumption of innocence, since shackling tells jurors that the person being shackled is dangerous and needs to be retrained. Breyer also noted that shackling a defendant hurts his ability to interact with his attorneys, and prevents a defendant from taking the witness stand. The principle of court dignity also came up in the opinion of the court. The court stated, “The routine use of shackles in the presence of juries would undermine these symbolic yet concrete objectives.” By making these conclusions about shackling a defendant, the court ruled “the considerations that militate against the routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a criminal trial apply with like force to penalty proceedings in capital cases.” This deals with the fact the in these cases, the jury is still deciding between life and death and that this is a decision of equal importance compared to the question of innocence and guilt. The decision of life or death in the sentencing phase is serious which requires reliable sentencing. According to Justice Breyer the court has “stressed the ‘acute need’ for reliable decision making when the death penalty is at issue.” Breyer stated that in Deck’s case his right to reliable sentencing was infringed upon (a right derived from the Eight Amendment).
The Court then made it clear that the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court did not meet the Constitutional requirements for permitting the shackling of Deck. The Supreme Court said this because they determined that the jury was aware of the shackles, that the trial judge did not permit the shackling of Deck because he was a security risk but because he had been previously convicted, and that the shackling created “prejudice” towards the defendant. All of these factors were not recognized by the Missouri Supreme Court on Deck’s initial appeal
. The Court concluded by saying there is one exception to shackling a defendant. The opinion of the Court permits a judge to use his/her discretion to shackle a defendant under certain circumstances, including protecting people in the courtroom. Breyer also wrote that the determination of whether a defendant should be shackled “must be case specific.” Breyer said that if that is not the case, the shackling violates due process
as it did in Deck’s case.
, delivered by Justice Thomas
, joined by Justice Scalia, it was stated that shackling Deck was not excessive because he had already been convicted. It was noted that, since the jury knew of Deck’s conviction, the shackling of Deck would not have shocked the members of the jury. With regard to the shackles biasing the jury, Thomas stated, “shackles may undermine the factfinding process only if seeing a convicted murderer in them is prejudicial.” Thomas believes seeing a convicted murder in shackles in not prejudicial. Thomas wrote “to presume that such a defendant suffers prejudice by appearing in handcuffs at sentencing does not comport with reality." Thomas also points out that majority put forth no evidence that supports the idea that the shackles prevented Deck from participating in his defense, including taking the stand, or that the shackles caused him pain.” The dissent also stated that since Deck was convicted of capital crimes, his behavior may not have been predictable. The dissent thought that Deck could act out, and that “he could turn that ire on his counsel, who failed in defending his innocence.” The dissent even suggested that there is a possibility that Deck could have tried to harm a witness or a reporter.
Thomas
argued that the opinion of the court goes against common sense and that the decision paid little attention to courtroom security issues. Later in his opinion Thomas stated “there was no consensus that supports elevating the rule against shackling to a federal constitutional command.” Thomas argues “there is no tradition barring the use of shackles or other restraints at sentencing.” Thomas even states that recent courts have articulated that the “rule against visible shackled does not apply to sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 350 (Utah 1993); Duckett v. State, 104 Nev. 6, 11, 752 P.2d 752, 755 (1988) (per curiam); State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1, 18—19, 776 N. E. 2d 26, 46—47 (2002);”
Thomas then wrote about the three modern cases the majority talked about in their opinion. Thomas stated, “in recent years, more of a consensus regarding the use of shackling has developed, with many courts concluding that shackling is inherently prejudicial. But rather than being firmly grounded in deeply rooted principles, that consensus stems from a series of ill-considered dicta…the current consensus that the court describes is one of its own making. It depends almost exclusively on the dicta in the Courts’ opinions in Holbrook, Estelle and Allen.” In Deck's case, Thomas believes that due process
does not “place limits” on shackling because there is a difference between an accused man and a convicted man. Ultimately, Thomas believes that limits on shackling do not extend to the sentencing phase of a trial.
Thomas
then wrote about the idea of protecting courtroom dignity. Thomas believes that “the power of the courts to maintain order, however, is not a right personal to the defendant, much less one of constitutional proportions…The concern for courtroom decorum is not a concern about defendants, let alone their right to due process
. It is a concern about society’s need for courts to operate effectively.” Thomas concludes his dissent by writing that the majority’s opinion does not really benefit the defendant but “risks the lives of courtroom personnel …a risk that due process does not require.”
Stephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
, the Supreme Court
Supreme court
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, high court, or apex court...
held that is against due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.
Background
On August 27, 1996 Carman Deck was official charged and arrested for six felonies. Among these felonies were a count of first-degree robbery, a count of first-degree burglary, two counts of armed criminal action, and two counts of first-degree murder. During the guilty phase of Deck’s original trial, he was dressed as a normal citizen, but had leg-braces under his clothes. Deck’s trial began on February 17, 1998 and within three days, he was convicted on all counts. After handing down a verdict, it took the jury only one additional day to sentence Deck to death. After the trial, Deck appealed to the Supreme Court of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri
The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820, and is located in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction- the sole legal power to hear -...
where his conviction and sentence was upheld. However, Deck was later granted a new penalty phase after he appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri on the grounds that he received “ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.”
The retry of Deck’s penalty phase began on April 29, 2003, where he was brought into court wearing shackles. The defense objected to Deck being visibly restrained stating that Deck’s behavior did not justify shackles. The defense stated the only justification for shackling Deck would have been if he caused a disturbance in the courtroom. However, he did not. The defense also suggested other measures that the court could have taken to ensure safety instead of shackling Deck. These measures included adding extra security guards to the courtroom, and having the people who wanted to sit in the gallery walk through metal detectors. However, the defense’s objections were overruled. Deck’s attorney’s once again objected during voir dire
Voir dire
Voir dire is a phrase in law which comes from the Anglo-Norman language. In origin it refers to an oath to tell the truth , i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both....
. Deck’s defense thought that asking jurors if the shackles biased them was not enough to ensure that Deck would receive reliable sentencing. The court overruled the objection again stating “The objection that you’re making will be overruled. He has been convicted and will remain in legirons and belly chain.” The jury once again sentenced Deck to death.
Deck Appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820, and is located in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction- the sole legal power to hear -...
arguing that the shackles infringed upon his right to due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, equal protection, right to confront evidence against him, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
Cruel and unusual punishment
Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person...
(prescribed from Amendments five
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
, six
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
, eight
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual...
and fourteen
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
). The Missouri Supreme Court held that the trial court had standing to impose security measures if it was necessary. The Supreme Court of Missouri stated that Deck had committed murder and that he would run if he had the chance. Additionally, the court ruled that there was “no record of the extent of the jury’s awareness of the restraints throughout the penalty phase.” The Missouri Supreme Court concluded by stating that it was not claimed that the shackles prevented Deck from participating in the trial and that no evidence has been put forth to prove that it did.
Petitioner's Argument
Deck and his attorneys submitted a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to try to get his death sentence thrown out. The Writ of Certiorari laid out Deck’s arguments as to why the shackling was unconstitutional. Deck and his counsel claimed that some of Deck’s basic constitutional rights were violated when he was shackled in open court.Deck specifically claimed that his right to right to due process,
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendment, were violated. Deck’s counsel made it clear that there was no reason such as a court disturbance to permit such shackling. In Deck’s argument to the Supreme Court
Supreme court
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, high court, or apex court...
, it was also argued that Deck’s 6th Amendment rights had been violated on the grounds of the Confrontation Clause
Confrontation Clause
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are...
. Deck’s shackling told the jury that Deck was a dangerous person and was shackled to protect the people in the courtroom. Therefore, the jury had a picture in their mind that Deck was an awful person. Deck’s attorney’s referred to this idea as prejudice towards Deck. Deck’s counsel argued that this meant that the jury was influenced by arbitrary details in deciding Deck’s sentence, not just the presented facts. It was made clear that Deck could not cross-examine or defend against the idea of bias and prejudice against him. As a result his right to confront witnesses as stated in the 6th Amendment (as well as idea of an impartial jury) was violated by the shackles. Also, Deck’s counsel argued that the shackles violated the defendants’ rights that “give meaning to the defendant’s right to be present at his trial.” It was argued that the shackles limited Deck from freely conversing with his counsel, and that they prevented him from taking the stand to defend himself. The defense wrote that this would increase the chances of Deck being sentenced to death by the jury which made the shackling unconstitutional.
Additionally Deck argued that his 8th Amendment rights had been violated because of the idea of reliable sentencing. This also ties into the idea of a biased jury. According to justices Souter and Stevens’ concurring opinion in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, the “Eight Amendment requires provision of accurate sentencing information as an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die” (case from 1994). Deck’s attorney’s argued that since the jury considered arbitrary evidence, Deck's right to reliable sentencing had been violated.
It is important to note that Deck and his attorneys also argued about the burden of proof. Deck’s counsel believed that the bias created by the shackles put the burden of proof
Burden of proof
The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of...
on Deck and not the state. The defense argued that the state could not prove that the shackles did no harm. Ultimately, the defense felt that the shackling of Deck was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Reasonable doubt
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems . Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard...
, meaning shackling made a difference in the decision that the jury made. The defense argued that this alone was a violation against the constitution
Constitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
and due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
.
Amicus Curiae Briefs
An Amicus CuriaeAmicus curiae
An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it...
brief was filed by Thomas H. Speedy Rice on behalf of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Whales and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is an American criminal defense organization. Their stated mission is to "Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime. Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense profession...
on behalf of Deck (petitioner).
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/Deck_final.pdf
In their brief, the Bar of Human Rights Committee and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is an American criminal defense organization. Their stated mission is to "Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime. Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense profession...
argued that the shackling of Deck was a human rights violation. In was also argued that the shackles violated due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
and common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
and that the shackles dimished courtroom dignity. Additionally, it was argued that the shackles contributed to self-incrimination, and prevented Deck from confronting witnesses against him.
A brief was filed by the state of California by “Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Catherine Chatman and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, by John W. Suthers, Interim Attorney General of Colorado.” Additionally, the Attorney Generals of the following filed briefs: “roy King of Alabama, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Steve Carter of Indiana."
Majority Opinion
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme CourtSupreme court
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, high court, or apex court...
reversed the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. The opinion, written by Justice Breyer, made it clear that shackling a defendant during the sentencing portion of a trial does violate the fifth
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
, sixth
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
, eight
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual...
, and fourteenth Amendments
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
of the Constitution
Constitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
. The Supreme Court held that unless the shackling pertains to a specific defendant for specific state interests, the Constitution forbids the shackling of a defendant in the sentencing phase (as well as the guilty phase) of a trial.
How the Supreme Court Came to its Conclusion:
The Supreme Court
Supreme court
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, high court, or apex court...
first noted that the law (historically) has prohibited the shackling of a defendant in the guilty-innocent phase of a trial. The court also noted shackling is only allowed when there is a “special need." The court explained that this concept is embedded in the law and that courts have followed this rule throughout history. The court noted that this rule was first written by William Blackstone
William Blackstone
Sir William Blackstone KC SL was an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century. He is most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Born into a middle class family in London, Blackstone was educated at Charterhouse School before matriculating at Pembroke...
in his 18th Century Commentaries on England. Blackstone a politician, judge and jurist, wrote “it is laid down in our ancient books, that, though under an indictment of the highest nature, a defendant must be brought to the bar without irons, or any manner of shackles or bonds; unless there be evident danger of an escape.” Next, the court looked at more recent opinions to show that this rule relates to a defendant’s right to due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
. The court looked at the dictum
Dictum
In United States legal terminology, a dictum is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it....
of three cases, Illinois v. Allen, Holbrook v. Flynn and Estelle v. Williams
Estelle v. Williams
Estelle v. Williams 425 U.S. 501 , is a trial which involved the accused Harry Lee Williams murdering his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. Because he was unable to post bail he was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found...
. In Allen, the Court said that trial courts should only use shackles on defendants, during the guilty phase, as a “last resort.” In Holbrook, the court stated that shackling is “prejudicial” and should only be allowed when state interests are involved. Lastly, in Estelle, the court stated that making a defendant go to in trial wearing prison attire threatened the “fairness of the fact-finding process” and should only be allowed when “essential state policy” justifies it. The Court then established that these cases give acknowledgement to standards that are embedded in the Constitution and the law which governs in the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
. The court then tried to determine is this rule also applies to the sentencing phase of a trial, not just the guilt-innocent portion.
The court established that in fact the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments prohibits the shackling of a defendant during the sentencing phase of a trial. The court made this determination by looking at important facts or legal standards. The court noted that shackling a defendant undermines the presumption of innocence, since shackling tells jurors that the person being shackled is dangerous and needs to be retrained. Breyer also noted that shackling a defendant hurts his ability to interact with his attorneys, and prevents a defendant from taking the witness stand. The principle of court dignity also came up in the opinion of the court. The court stated, “The routine use of shackles in the presence of juries would undermine these symbolic yet concrete objectives.” By making these conclusions about shackling a defendant, the court ruled “the considerations that militate against the routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a criminal trial apply with like force to penalty proceedings in capital cases.” This deals with the fact the in these cases, the jury is still deciding between life and death and that this is a decision of equal importance compared to the question of innocence and guilt. The decision of life or death in the sentencing phase is serious which requires reliable sentencing. According to Justice Breyer the court has “stressed the ‘acute need’ for reliable decision making when the death penalty is at issue.” Breyer stated that in Deck’s case his right to reliable sentencing was infringed upon (a right derived from the Eight Amendment).
The Court then made it clear that the opinion of the Missouri Supreme Court did not meet the Constitutional requirements for permitting the shackling of Deck. The Supreme Court said this because they determined that the jury was aware of the shackles, that the trial judge did not permit the shackling of Deck because he was a security risk but because he had been previously convicted, and that the shackling created “prejudice” towards the defendant. All of these factors were not recognized by the Missouri Supreme Court on Deck’s initial appeal
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
. The Court concluded by saying there is one exception to shackling a defendant. The opinion of the Court permits a judge to use his/her discretion to shackle a defendant under certain circumstances, including protecting people in the courtroom. Breyer also wrote that the determination of whether a defendant should be shackled “must be case specific.” Breyer said that if that is not the case, the shackling violates due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
as it did in Deck’s case.
Dissent
In the dissentDissent
Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to a prevailing idea or an entity...
, delivered by Justice Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
, joined by Justice Scalia, it was stated that shackling Deck was not excessive because he had already been convicted. It was noted that, since the jury knew of Deck’s conviction, the shackling of Deck would not have shocked the members of the jury. With regard to the shackles biasing the jury, Thomas stated, “shackles may undermine the factfinding process only if seeing a convicted murderer in them is prejudicial.” Thomas believes seeing a convicted murder in shackles in not prejudicial. Thomas wrote “to presume that such a defendant suffers prejudice by appearing in handcuffs at sentencing does not comport with reality." Thomas also points out that majority put forth no evidence that supports the idea that the shackles prevented Deck from participating in his defense, including taking the stand, or that the shackles caused him pain.” The dissent also stated that since Deck was convicted of capital crimes, his behavior may not have been predictable. The dissent thought that Deck could act out, and that “he could turn that ire on his counsel, who failed in defending his innocence.” The dissent even suggested that there is a possibility that Deck could have tried to harm a witness or a reporter.
Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
argued that the opinion of the court goes against common sense and that the decision paid little attention to courtroom security issues. Later in his opinion Thomas stated “there was no consensus that supports elevating the rule against shackling to a federal constitutional command.” Thomas argues “there is no tradition barring the use of shackles or other restraints at sentencing.” Thomas even states that recent courts have articulated that the “rule against visible shackled does not apply to sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 350 (Utah 1993); Duckett v. State, 104 Nev. 6, 11, 752 P.2d 752, 755 (1988) (per curiam); State v. Franklin, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1, 18—19, 776 N. E. 2d 26, 46—47 (2002);”
Thomas then wrote about the three modern cases the majority talked about in their opinion. Thomas stated, “in recent years, more of a consensus regarding the use of shackling has developed, with many courts concluding that shackling is inherently prejudicial. But rather than being firmly grounded in deeply rooted principles, that consensus stems from a series of ill-considered dicta…the current consensus that the court describes is one of its own making. It depends almost exclusively on the dicta in the Courts’ opinions in Holbrook, Estelle and Allen.” In Deck's case, Thomas believes that due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
does not “place limits” on shackling because there is a difference between an accused man and a convicted man. Ultimately, Thomas believes that limits on shackling do not extend to the sentencing phase of a trial.
Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
then wrote about the idea of protecting courtroom dignity. Thomas believes that “the power of the courts to maintain order, however, is not a right personal to the defendant, much less one of constitutional proportions…The concern for courtroom decorum is not a concern about defendants, let alone their right to due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
. It is a concern about society’s need for courts to operate effectively.” Thomas concludes his dissent by writing that the majority’s opinion does not really benefit the defendant but “risks the lives of courtroom personnel …a risk that due process does not require.”