Opinion ID: 2523874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Boose Violation

Text: ¶ 166 There is no dispute that Jonathon was shackled during much of his trial. There is also no dispute that the trial court never conducted a Boose hearing to determine whether there was a need for such restraints. Further, there is nothing in the record to indicate that restraints were necessary. Jonathon concedes that neither he nor his attorney objected to the shackles. However, he contends, as he did in the appellate court, that the trial court's failure to conduct a Boose hearing and to provide a justification for the restraints constitutes plain error and, thus, the trial court's finding that he is guilty of the offense of criminal sexual assault should be reversed. ¶ 167 The State agrees with Jonathon that the trial court erred by not holding a Boose hearing, but argues that the error did not rise to the level of plain error. The majority, however, ignores the State's concession of error and holds that no error occurred because [t]here is nothing in the record to show that the trial judge was even aware of the shackles before Jonathon was called to testify, nor is there evidence in the record that the shackles were put back on when Jonathon finished his testimony. Supra ¶ 71. The majority then concludes: [Without] affirmative indication in the record that the trial court was aware of the shackles before Jonathon was called to testify,    we presume that the trial court acted properly and did not commit error with regard to Jonathon's shackling. (Emphasis added.) Supra ¶ 72. ¶ 168 The majority places the onus on Jonathon to show that the trial court was aware that he was wearing shackles and, because Jonathon has provided no evidence that the trial judge was aware of the shackles at the outset of trial, the majority finds that the trial judge was not responsible for them, was under no obligation to justify their use, and did not err by failing to hold a Boose hearing. I disagree. ¶ 169 The majority presumes that the judge was unaware of the fact that Jonathon was shackled until, on the third day of trial, Jonathon rose to take the stand, at which time the court ordered the shackles be removed. I, like Justice Freeman and the dissenting appellate justice below, find this presumed lack of awareness highly suspect. It is axiomatic that the responsibility for maintaining control of a courtroom rests with the trial judge. If we presume anything, therefore, we should presume that the trial judge was aware of the security measures being used in her own courtroom. ¶ 170 More importantly, the majority, by its ruling, approves of trial courts taking a Sergeant Schultz approach to the problem of unnecessary shackling (see Kennedy v. Guess, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 776, 786 (Ind.2004)). [3] Trial courts can simply turn a blind eye to the apparent common practice of shackling minors and, if no one brings the matter to the court's attention, there is no error because the trial judge sees nothing. ¶ 171 But even if I accept the majority's premise that the trial court was unaware of the shackles, I cannot agree with the majority's holding that no error occurred. This is because I, like Justice Freeman, believe that trial judges have an affirmative obligation to ascertain whether the juveniles who come before them are shackled and, if so, to conduct a Boose hearing to determine whether restraints are necessary. ¶ 172 It has long been recognized that unnecessary shackling is fundamentally and inherently prejudicial. See Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 265-66, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303 (It has been held that the shackling of the accused should be avoided if possible because: (1) it tends to prejudice the jury against the accused; (2) it restricts his ability to assist his counsel during trial; and (3) it offends the dignity of the judicial process.); In re Staley, 67 Ill.2d at 37-38, 7 Ill.Dec. 85, 364 N.E.2d 72 (`A defendant may be shackled when there is reason to believe that he may try to escape or that he may pose a threat to the safety of people in the courtroom or if it is necessary to maintain order during the trial. [Citations.]' In the absence of such a showing, however, which must be established clearly on the record [citation], an accused cannot be tried in shackles whether there is to be a bench trial or a trial by jury. (quoting Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 266, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303)). ¶ 173 The United States Supreme Court observed in Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 125 S.Ct. 2007, 161 L.Ed.2d 953 (2005), that the core concern regarding shackling is the negative impact it can have on three fundamental legal principles: the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and the dignity of the judicial process. Deck, 544 U.S. at 630-32, 125 S.Ct. 2007. The Court went on to explain that shackles `impos[e] physical burdens, pains, and restraints ... ten[d] to confuse and embarrass' defendants' `mental faculties,' and thereby tend `materially to abridge and prejudicially affect his constitutional rights.' Id. at 631, 125 S.Ct. 2007 (citing People v. Harrington, 42 Cal. 165, 168 (1871)). We reaffirmed, in Allen, that even when there is no jury, any unnecessary restraint is impermissible because it hinders the defendant's ability to assist his counsel, runs afoul of the presumption of innocence, and demeans both the defendant and the proceedings. Allen, 222 Ill.2d at 347, 305 Ill.Dec. 544, 856 N.E.2d 349. ¶ 174 As Justice Freeman notes in his dissent, the damaging psychological effects that shackles can have on defendants (see Deck, 544 U.S. at 631, 125 S.Ct. 2007), are even greater for minors and often exacerbate feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and insecurity. Supra ¶ 149 (Freeman, J., dissenting). These concerns do not cease to exist simply because the trial court sees nothing. I agree, therefore, that it should not be the responsibility of a juvenile in a delinquency hearing to ensure that he or she is provided a trial free from inherently prejudicial practices. Supra ¶ 144 (Freeman, J., dissenting). ¶ 175 I also wholeheartedly agree with Justice Freeman that allowing minors to be shackled throughout juvenile proceedings cannot be reconciled with the majority's stance that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials because `[d]elinquency proceedings are    protective in nature and the purpose of the Act is to correct and rehabilitate, not to punish.' Supra ¶ 94 (quoting In re Rodney H., 223 Ill.2d 510, 520, 308 Ill.Dec. 292, 861 N.E.2d 623 (2006)). The majority relies on the notion that juvenile court proceedings are administered in a spirit of humane concern for, and promote the welfare of, the minor ( supra ¶ 92 (quoting In re A.G., 195 Ill.2d 313, 317, 253 Ill.Dec. 911, 746 N.E.2d 732 (2001))), to support its conclusion that juvenile proceedings are not tantamount to a criminal trial. At the very least, it is disingenuous for the majority to say that juvenile proceedings are administered in the spirit of humane concern and at the same time find that leaving a minor shackled throughout his trial does not constitute error. If the majority genuinely believes that a parens patriae relationship still exists between juvenile courts and minors, it is imperative that courts be required to take a proactive role in eliminating unnecessary shackling. Moreover, as Justice Freeman points out, if trial courts have no affirmative obligation to determine whether the juveniles who come before them are being unnecessarily restrained, we are, in effect, permitting trial judges to abdicate their duty to maintain control over their courtrooms and allowing law enforcement personnel to dictate the type of security measures that are being employed there. ¶ 176 There is one more important reason why I believe the majority is wrong to conclude that the trial court's failure to conduct a Boose hearing in this case is not error. The majority finds no error here because it presumes the trial court was unaware, at the beginning of the trial, that Jonathon was wearing shackles. Had this been a criminal prosecution of an adult, the same rule would apply and the adult defendantlike Jonathon herewould be unable to obtain relief on direct appeal. However, the adult defendant would be able to seek relief by filing a postconviction petition, arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to alert the trial judge to the fact of the shackles. This avenue, however, is foreclosed to Jonathon because the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not apply to juvenile proceedings. See In re J.T., 221 Ill.2d 338, 303 Ill.Dec. 103, 851 N.E.2d 1 (2006). Thus, based on the majority's finding that the trial court did not err, Jonathon and all juveniles similarly situated, have no opportunityeither directly or by collateral attackto obtain relief. What this means is that a juvenile can be restrained throughout his entire trial and, despite all of the attendant concerns that shackling entails, have no forum in which to argue that he was prejudiced. Thus the majority, while maintaining that juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature and are more protective of the rights of juveniles, actually places juveniles in a worse position, providing them with less protection than an adult. This is an illogical and untenable situation. While it may be appropriate to treat juveniles and adult defendants differently in some contexts, no one can seriously maintain that placing juveniles in a worse position than adult defendants is justifiable. Yet this is exactly what the majority has done. ¶ 177 Because the majority's finding that no error occurred leads to absurd results, I must conclude that the trial court had an affirmative obligation to determine whether Jonathon was shackled and that the trial court erred because it did not hold a hearing to determine whether shackles were justified.