Opinion ID: 3001192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disruptive Conduct During Proceedings

Text: With Mannie initially sitting idly at the sidelines, Patterson stole the show at their joint proceedings. It was clear from the beginning that Patterson believed that he was again being set up by the government, and that he had no intention of peacefully cooperating during the trial. Specifically, Patterson engaged in the following disruptive conduct during pretrial proceedings: – On August 6, 2004, after both defendants were arrested, they appeared in court, and Patterson disrupted the court several times (even receiving applause from the audience). He admonished the court to “get used to this.” – On May 25, 2005, the court held a pretrial confer- ence, and Patterson repeatedly spoke out of turn and yelled, threatening the trial judge that “you’re going to have to run me out of this courtroom [sic] if you’re not going to listen to me.” – On May 26, 2005, during pretrial motions, Patterson again disrupted the proceedings, and he was subsequently removed from the courtroom. – On May 27, 2005, the court held a pretrial confer- ence regarding Patterson’s competency to stand trial. An expert psychologist testified that Patterson characterizes himself as a revolutionary, that No. 06-1353 5 he takes a very active and personal role in his defense, and that he goes to extremes to get his point across. Patterson was present and repeatedly interrupted the proceedings. In addition, Patterson engaged in the following disruptive conduct during jury selection: – On June 30, 2005, Patterson (who was wearing an orange jumpsuit during the proceedings) argued with the court and threatened his own lawyers. His lawyer warned that Patterson “will go off,” and asked to be withdrawn because “we are now on an escalating scale and I do not wish to be a part of this circus.” The court eventually ordered Patterson removed from the courtroom because he was using it as a forum to invite members of the audience to engage in civil disobedience. The entire panel of jurors from that day was dismissed. When Patterson returned for the afternoon session he was disruptive again, and the court excused him from the session.2 – On July 1, as prospective jurors were being interviewed, Patterson’s counsel asked for a sidebar and told the court that he was interfering with counsel. The court excused the jurors and Patterson, enraged, started to shout and swear. The court then had Patterson removed from the courtroom, and dismissed the jurors and started over with a third panel. Patterson then refused to attend the trial. The court asked Patterson to return on nearly every day of the trial. The court had conditioned Patterson’s return on a representation that he would behave, and he made it clear that 2 The district court did note at this point that Patterson’s conduct could jeopardize Mannie’s right to a fair trial. 6 No. 06-1353 he had no intention of doing so. In fact, he explicitly related to the court that if he returned, he would deliberately disrupt the proceedings. Nevertheless, he did finally return to the trial on July 21st wearing his prison garb. Given the tension that had mounted during pretrial proceedings, it is not altogether surprising that the following events unfolded during the joint trial: – On July 15, one juror identified “unsavory” individuals in the gallery who were staring down mem- bers of the jury. – The court conducted a voir dire of this juror who expressed that this would not affect his impartiality, and that he was mostly speculat- ing and did not truly think that he or any juror perceived there to be a serious problem. – On July 20, at least one juror witnessed what some of them believed to be gang members making gang signs with Mannie. Some jurors noticed members of the gallery staring at them in order to memorize their faces. – The court conducted a voir dire of the jury. One juror noticed the gang signs between Mannie and a spectator, and expressed that she did not “want people coming to [her] home in the middle of the night to kill [her].” She also declared that “many of us don’t want to be here . . . [w]e don’t want to be involved for safety reasons.” This juror was dismissed. The rest of the jury gave equivocating responses with respect to how they felt about the gallery, but nevertheless maintained that they could remain impartial. – On July 21, Patterson gestured at the jury. In addition, a juror (and a court security officer) noticed a member of the gallery staring at the jury. No. 06-1353 7 – This individual was eventually barred from the building, and the court reminded the jurors that if they had any concerns at any time, they should raise it with the court. – On July 25, the courtroom drama escalated to a new level. While Mannie’s counsel was cross- examining a government witness, Patterson interrupted and yelled at counsel to “get off [his] case” and accused the defense attorneys of setting him up for a fall. He then stood up, knocked one of his attorneys to the ground, grabbed the other attor- ney by his necktie, and threw him to the ground as well. Both attorneys were in a tangle in the corner and one limped around afterwards. – At this point Mannie moved for a mistrial or severance. The court then conducted a voir dire of each juror individually. One juror acknowledged that she was “human” but “hoped” that she could be fair. This juror was dismissed. The rest of the jury expressed an awareness of the extreme nature of these actions, but indicated that they could still remain impartial. The court then denied Mannie’s motion for a mistrial and severance. – The next day the government motioned to bar Patterson from returning from the courtroom for his own testimony and instead testify via video feed (which the court had already set up). The district court eventually denied this motion. – On July 26, the gallery became vocal during Mannie’s testimony. – On July 27, Patterson refused to answer questions during cross-examination and instead invoked 8 No. 06-1353 conspiracy theories and referred to the proceedings as a legal lynching. – Mannie moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion almost immediately without polling the jury. Instead, it instructed the jury to disregard Patterson’s conduct and testimony. Before deliberations, the district court instructed the jury to give separate consideration to both defendants, disregard any noise or outburst, and give no weight to Patterson’s absence during the trial. After the verdict, Mannie moved for a new trial arguing that the court erred in denying his motions for severance or mistrial. The court rejected his motion and issued a written opinion, concluding that Mannie sought a severance well after the trial had begun, and that the court’s use of voir dire and cautionary instructions were sufficient to eliminate bias.