Document: 475 U.S. 560 106 S.Ct. 1340 89 L.Ed.2d 525 Terrance HOLBROOK, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk, Massachusetts, et al., Petitionersv.Charles FLYNN. No. 84-1606. Argued Jan. 14, 1986. Decided March 26, Syllabus After respondent and others were indicted for armed robbery in Rhode Island Superior Court, they held without bail. When the trial was about to begin, four uniformed state troopers sitting front row of spectators' section courtroom supplement customary security force, which overextended at time. Respondent's counsel objected troopers' presence, but this objection overruled by justice, primarily on basis voir dire responses during selection jury indicating that presence would not affect defendants' ability receive a fair trial. Respondent convicted, Supreme Court affirmed. then brought habeas corpus proceeding Federal District also rejected his objections presence. The Appeals reversed, holding justice had failed consider whether particular circumstances respondent's called improperly relied jurors' rebut any suggestion prejudice respondent. 1 Held: so inherently prejudicial he thereby denied constitutional right Pp. 567-572. 2 (a) While an accused is entitled have guilt or innocence determined solely evidence introduced trial, does mean every practice tending single out from everyone else must be struck down. 567-568. 3 (b) conspicuous, least noticeable, guards sort should permitted only where justified essential interest. Such need interpreted as sign defendant particularly dangerous culpable. Jurors may just easily believe are there prevent outside disruptions eruptions violence courtroom. Reason, principle, human experience against presumption use identifiable prejudicial. In view variety ways such can deployed, case-by-case approach more appropriate. P. 568-569. 4 (c) Whenever arrangement challenged prejudicial, question jurors articulated consciousness some effect, rather unacceptable risk prejudice. case, no justification finding based Even if been aware deployment common practice, reason tended brand with guilt. Their unlikely taken anything other than normal official concern safety order. Moreover, even slight degree could attributed sufficient cause their found State's maintain custody over defendants who intimately related legitimate interest maintaining thus did offend Equal Protection Clause arbitrarily discriminating those unable post bail whom has denied. 570-572. 5 (d) Since case involves federal court's review challenge state-court proceeding, task determine it might feasible State employed less conspicuous measures courtroom, what saw pose threat show existence inherent shown actual 572. 6 749 F.2d 961 (CA1 1984), reversed. 7 MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. BURGER, C.J., filed concurring opinion, post, p. 8 Thomas More Dickinson, Providence, R.I., Arlene Violet John Austin Murphy, brief, petitioner. 9 George Kannar, New York City, 10 Justice MARSHALL 11 presented criminal when, five codefendants, force supplemented first spectator's section. 12 * On August 1975, nine masked men entered Bonded Vault Co. Island, robbed several employees gunpoint, broke into most safe-deposit boxes vault, escaped approximately $4 million cash valuables. January 1976, eight Providence County crime. hearing alleged accomplices ordered Warden Adult Institution.1 13 April codefendants before Associate Anthony A. Giannini. Upon entering noted troopers, section; officers far behind, separated "bar" from, seats assigned duration trial.2 Counsel immediately complained judge "the object police, court display 'strength' jury." Tr. 48-49. observed number plainclothed personnel, argued suggest "bad character." Id., 48. Giannini replied present because Committing Squad, usually supplied personnel cases, Noting personally requested assistance agreed see made wear civilian clothes future appearances 14 following week, announced "received report practical, both organization point contractual union representing troopers," dress clothes. 71. face these constraints adequate security, ruled remain full uniform. He seated behind bar, way prejudiced. next day, denying motion reconsideration, asserted though himself decision deploy thought "overly sensitive" danger 84. At rate, went on, examination prospective reveal likely draw adverse inference guarantee rights defendants. Jury began. 15 meantime, sought interlocutory Giannini's ruling. initially declining review, read transcript ruling granted petition. "[t]he armed, police acting courtrooms jurisdiction departure courts state," concluded: "The delegate responsibility so-called committee its advisors. Police resolved after consideration all relevant factors." v. Byrnes, 116 R.I. 925, 927, 357 A.2d 448, 449 (1976). 16 request, conducted witness Captain Robert Melucci, principal officer group charged trials pretrial detention.3 testified that, commitments courthouse, available building insufficient preferred ratio six-defendant approaching one-to-one posed "security risk," 120, spare six Melucci contacted Court's presiding informed him additional personnel. As result, testified, help Police. 17 witness, Major Lionel Benjamin, Executive Officer Police, explained time transporting prisoners Institution courthouse contractually obligated division. That same contract Fraternal Order according precluded asking members division perform duties clothing. note force's plainclothes detective lacked provide concluded saying required clothes, withdraw them. 161. 18 completing selection, gave final motion. "if admitted bail, policemen committing squad courtroom." 229. But having denied, became Squad detainees. resources, necessary level ensured troopers. Having "justified evidence," considered prejudiced 54 asked 51 responded "created regard mind"; remaining precisely addressed question. 230-231. speculate why present, many given vague response security. responses, 19 lasted two months ended verdicts acquitting three convicting others. appeal, affirmed convictions. 433 658 (1981). With respect "[T]he reasoned careful issues raised and, factors, We record, we find whatsoever fault conclusion." 663. 20 certain procedural complications here, entertained petition claims therein. throughout held: "Less totalitarian alternatives appear explored rational grounds. approved extreme been, not, under totality circumstances, deny due process equal protection petitioner." 581 F.Supp. 990, 998 (1984). 21 Appeals, however, reversed dismissal. 1984). Seizing upon observation "extraordinary" event, measures. 22 "Rather, threats safety, balanced nothing, simply indicated fear since bailed, flee There suggesting unusual likelihood this; nor whatever 'manifest' 'necessity heightened security.' exploration 'totalitarian alternatives,' limited, notwithstanding suggestions, inquiring regular commitment inconveniencing Presiding Justice, uniform unarmed." 964. 23 Dismissing judge's reliance respondent, asserted: "Even unreserved them, expression, this, rely it, totally unacceptable." 965. writ granted. 24 certiorari, 472 1026, 105 3499, 87 630 (1985), now reverse. II 25 Central guaranteed Sixth Fourteenth Amendments, principle "one crime grounds suspicion, indictment, continued custody, adduced proof trial." Taylor Kentucky, 436 478, 485, 98 1930, 1934, 56 468 (1978). This mean, Recognizing quite appearing them arrive choice happenstance, never tried, hope, eliminate procedures reminder chosen marshal resources punish allegedly conduct. To defendant's ordinary our legal system instead placed primary adversary innocence. defense vigorously represents client's interests assiduously works impress presume innocence, trusted result obtained. 26 Our faith capacity adhere instructions absolute, however. recognized practices "fairness factfinding process" subjected "close judicial scrutiny." Estelle Williams, 425 501, 503-504, 96 1691, 1692-1693, 48 126 Thus, forced prison when jury, constant accused's condition implicit distinctive, attire juror's judgment." 504-505, 1693. "essential policy" served compelling manner, id., 505, 1693, further unconstitutional. close scrutiny always fatal, Illinois Allen, 397 337, 90 1057, 353 (1970), emphasized appears bound gagged. "Not possible sight shackles gags significant effect jury's feelings defendant, technique itself something affront very dignity decorum proceedings seeking uphold." 344, S.Ct., 1061. Yet nonetheless situations, "binding gagging possibly fairest reasonable handle" obstreperous disruptive defendant. Ibid. B 27 issue here like shackling, specific each do is. 28 chief feature distinguishes wider range inferences juror reasonably officers' shackling unmistakable indications separate community large, guard emanating ensure tense exchanges erupt violence. Indeed, entirely will infer guards. If distance accused, well perceived elements impressive drama reminders special status. society become inured public places; doubtless long numbers weaponry alarm. See Hardee Kuhlman, 330, 332 (CA2 1978). 29 sure, within conditions "create impression minds untrustworthy." Kennedy Cardwell, 487 101, 108 (CA6 1973), cert. 416 959, 94 40 310 (1974). However, "reason, experience," supra, U.S., 504, III 30 consisted Deputy Sheriffs, officers. Though concede proper, focus stage exclusively attributes answer 31 correct assessment states mind cannot dispositive here. "a procedure probability deemed lacking process," Estes Texas, 381 532, 542-543, 85 1628, 1632-1633, 543 (1965), little stock contrary. Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 351-352, 86 1507, 1516-1517, 600 (1966); Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 728, 81 1639, 1645, 751 (1961). necessarily fully conscious attitude toward accused. especially true questioned beginning proceedings; point, how feel being exposed daily course therefore, actually "an impermissible factors coming play," 32 minimize roomful chances receiving ABA Standards Criminal 15-3.1(c) (2d ed. 1980). spectacle quietly courtroom's spectator section.4 eyes "with mark guilt." 518, 1699 (BRENNAN, dissenting). Cf. Dorman United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 327, 435 385, (1970) (greater arrangements extraordinary). Four order proceedings. believed wondered 33 note, moreover, able discern attributable individualized determination otherwise ensured. Unlike policy requiring detained garb, 505-506, 1693-1694. 34 wholly inadequate reasons advanced authorities accepted explain While, supervisory capacity, express preference providing guards,5 much constrained reviewing proceeding. All situation look scene trial; fails prejudice, inquiry over. carry burden judgment 35 Reversed. 36 Chief concurring. 37 I write my reading statement "in . ." Ante, 572 (emphasis added). joining interpret carefully qualified case—a case—as containing doff uniforms courtrooms, certainly none cases cites, ante, 572, n. 5, require arbitrary action. kind "prefer" is, course, distinct new used understanding, join opinion. Of defendants, fugitives third appeared State. Although record clearer colloquies corroborate statement, later proceedings, "sitting taking row, vacating spectators sit, guards, armed. 80; 71-72. maintained position although times See, e.g., 109, 146. name changed "Rhode marshals." 1976 R.I.Pub.Laws, ch. 259, § (codified R.I.Gen.Laws 42-56-3) (1984 reenactment). social science study pointed us addresses effects verdicts. Its tentative conclusion clad garb accompanied guilty unsupervised wearing own favored treatment accorded supervision Fontaine & Kiger, Effects Defendant Dress Supervision Judgments Simulated Jurors: An Exploratory Study, Law Human Behavior 63, 69-70 curious concededly results, will, now, sense. States Jackson, 549 517, 526-527 (CA8), sub nom. Muhammed 430 985, 97 1682, 52 379 (1977); Clardy, 540 439, 442-443 (CA9), 429 963, 391, 50 331 (1976); 109 N. Dorsen L. Friedman, Disorder 249 (1973).

Category: 0