Opinion ID: 1829968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 31

Heading: Uniformed Officers at Trial

Text: Before trial, Hansen moved the Court to restrict the wearing of uniforms by highway patrolmen when sitting as spectators in the courtroom. The Court stated that, if it appeared the prosecution was loading the courtroom with an undue number of uniformed officers and prejudicially so, Hansen should call the matter to the Court's attention at that time and that he would be in a great position to get a mistrial... . The Court overruled the then-pending motion. During the penalty phase, the defense renewed the point, saying, We believe that the courtroom is now of such a condition with Highway Patrol officers with their weapons that it is in violation of Fuselier, and we would ask that they be removed from the courtroom, and on the failure to remove them from the courtroom or properly admonish them, we would then ask for a mistrial as to this portion of the trial. The Court noted there were about thirty-nine or forty people in the courtroom who could be considered spectators, exclusive of court officers and personnel. There were two officers from Harrison County who had custody of the defendant, four officers acting as bailiffs, and six highway patrolmen in the spectator part. Those six were mingling with the lay personnel, and I don't see anyone of them with a gun on, or either they're sitting someplace where I can't see the gun. The Court found the uniformed officers were not intimidating the jury to Hansen's prejudice. Hansen also complains of remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument that emphasized and prejudiced the jury regarding the uniformed officers. The statement was as follows: I think over the last few days as you have seen this  this testimony, you understand the concerns that we had that, you know, certainly we don't want old Kirk Ladner over there on this jury because all that's kept him in that chair is faith in you. All that's kept these policemen with their weapons holstered is faith in you. Hansen made no objection to these comments. We perceive no basis for holding the Circuit Court abused its discretion in handling these matters.