Opinion ID: 1188672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: order re courtroom security

Text: The experiences of this Court together with information supplied to and recommendations made to it lead to the conclusion that major changes must be made forthwith in courtroom and courthouse security measures in cases emanating from the Washington State Penitentiary. Psychiatric evaluation reports received by the Court, the testimony of inmates at hearings and trials, and the conduct of inmates both in and out of the courtroom evidence that many individuals are being brought into the courtroom who constitute an extreme danger to the public, jurors, court personnel, custodial staff and security staff. Heedless of the consequences of their actions, they are willing to murder or maim innocent people merely for their morbid amusement, trial delays, mistrials or escape diversions. In the last penitentiary trial March 29th through April 5th, State v. Agtuca and Gilcrist, at the morning recess of the second day Gilcrist accidentally spilled coffee on his clothing and refused to come to the courtroom without his being taken back to the penitentiary for a change of clothing. The guards were ordered to produce him in court immediately. At the noon recess, the Court was informed at 1:25 p.m. that both defendants had accidentally spilled milk on their clothing during lunch and refused to come to court without a change of clothing. They were ordered produced in court without delay. At one point in the trial, Gilcrist accidentally ripped his pants and there was a delay until another pair was brought down from the penitentiary. At another point in the trial out of the presence of the jury Gilcrist following an adverse ruling by the Court gave the Court the finger (the Rockefeller salute). At the next recess of the Court following this incident the defendant Gilcrist wrote the Court a note of apology for his conduct, which is made a part of this record, and included a request for aspirin and Digel. The requested medication was provided by the Court. The first witness for the defense stepped down from the witness stand and asked the prosecutor for a cup of water. Provided with a small amount, he proceeded to throw it in the face of the number ten juror because he didn't like the way the juror had been looking at him. Before the defendants testified, the Court gave specific instructions to the correction officer in charge of security that the defendants were not to take the stand with pencils, pens or any articles on their persons. The defendant Agtuca took the stand and when asked to stand to exhibit a scar to the jury, the Court observed a comb and what appeared to be a blue pen (later confirmed) protruding from his right rear pocket. Although all witnesses and defendants were presumably skin and probe searched before leaving the penitentiary, the Court has been informed by the prison administration that one of the witnesses made a bomb with a Bic lighter and had it on his person the day he testified. Finding no opportunity to use it, he passed it to one of the defendants who brought it to the courthouse the next day (last day) of the trial and left it on the floor of the conference room where prisoners are held during recesses to confer with their lawyers. While conducting a search of the room for contraband, a penitentiary correctional officer found the lighter on the floor, attempted to light it and suffered the loss of three fingers of his right hand in the resulting explosion. A number of witnesses in the Agtuca-Gilcrist trial as well as other penitentiary trials heard by this Court have testified they engage daily in the practice of the martial arts to keep physically fit and to improve their skills in the use of deadly force with or without weapons. While some of these inmates are predictable risks obviously requiring special precautions, the predictability comes from past experience. The prison setting itself can trigger violent action in an individual who has not exhibited it before. Therefore, this Court deems there is no way to reliably distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. All inmates are potentially dangerous. The witness stand is 52 inches from the number seven juror's chair. Witnesses pass within 18 inches of all front-row jurors in taking and departing the witness stand. In my considered opinion, there is no way to adequately secure our existing courtroom facilities without taking the following measures for trials requiring the presence of penitentiary inmates: 1. Inmates will be searched at the prison before departure. They will be brought to the Walla Walla County Jail where they will be skin and probe searched under the supervision of the sheriff's personnel. As needed, they will be brought to the courtroom in the joint custody of the sheriff's personnel and penitentiary custodial staff. 2. Inmates will remain in arm and leg restraints. 3. Defendants will not sit at the counsel table. Security officers will remain sufficiently close to defendants to control their actions. Confidential matters will be discussed with counsel either in the courthouse hallway or the County Jail, depending on the duration of the conference. 4. The witness stand will be located near the left end of the counsel table and between that table and the rail enclosing the clerk and court reporter. It will face the jury box and will be approximately twenty feet from it. Security personnel will be located so as to maintain control of the witness from the time he enters the courtroom until he departs. 5. No witness will be allowed to leave the witness stand without the Court's permission. 6. The Court before impanelling the jury, unless defense counsel requests the Court not to, will advise all jurors that the security measures taken in penitentiary trials are the joint product of the penitentiary administration, the sheriff and the Court; that they are utilized routinely and that no inference is to be drawn from the security measures taken that any particular inmate is a security risk since the same procedures apply to all inmates regardless of their conduct records in the institution. The Court believes that jurors who live in a community where a penal institution is located will be more likely to determine issues fairly and impartially if they can observe for themselves the courtroom is secure. The jurors will be made aware during the course of the trial that the witnesses are inmates. It will be no surprise to jurors in this community that these routine security measures are taken. Thus, there should be no prejudice to defendants. Judge Mitchell is attending the National Trial Judges' College. This Order therefore applies, at this time, to Department I of this Court only. The foregoing provisions and requirements of this Order shall be effective immediately. Done in open court this 12th day of May, 1977. /s/ John Tuttle, Judge Report of Proceedings, at 50-54. BRACHTENBACH, C.J., and ROSELLINI, STAFFORD, UTTER, DOLLIVER, HICKS, DORE, and DIMMICK, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied January 12, 1982.