Legal Document

544 U.S. 622 DECKv.MISSOURI No. 04-5293. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 1, 2005. Decided May 23, Petitioner Deck was convicted capital murder and sentenced to death, but the Missouri set aside sentence. At his new sentencing proceeding, he shackled with leg irons, handcuffs, a belly chain. The trial court overruled counsel's objections shackles, again death. Affirming, State rejected Deck's claim that shackling violated, inter alia, Federal Constitution. Held: Constitution forbids use visible shackles during trial's penalty phase, as it does guilt unless is "justified by an essential state interest"—such courtroom security—specific defendant on trial. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U. S. 560, 568-569. Pp. 626-633. (a) law has long forbidden routine permitting only in presence special need. In light Holbrook, Illinois Allen, 397 337, early English cases, lower doctrine dating back 19th century, now clear this basic element due process protected Thus, Fifth Fourteenth Amendments prohibit using physical restraints jury absent determination, exercise its discretion, are justified interest specific particular 626-629. (b) If reasons motivating phase constitutional rule—the presumption innocence, securing meaningful defense, maintaining dignified proceedings—apply like force at same rule will apply there. latter two considerations obviously apply. As for first, while defendant's conviction means innocence no longer applies, threaten related concerns. jury, though deciding between life which, given sanction's severity finality, less important, Monge California, 524 721, 732. Nor accuracy making decision any critical. Yet, offender's appearance almost inevitably implies authorities consider him danger community (which often statutory aggravator always relevant factor); affects adversely jury's perception character; thereby undermines ability weigh accurately all when determining whether deserves courts cannot routinely place defendants or other not absolute. judge's account may be taken circumstances case hand, including security concerns, call order accommodate important need protect occupants. 630-633. (c) Missouri's arguments high court's meets Constitution's requirements unconvincing. first—that properly concluded there evidence saw restraints—is inconsistent record, which shows aware them, overstates what actually said, counsel made record extent awareness shackles. second—that acted within discretion—founders clearly indicate judge weighted case. did refer escape risk threat explain why, if were necessary, provide nonvisible ones apparently done third—that suffered prejudice—fails take Holbrook's statement "inherently prejudicial," S., 568, view rooted Court's belief practice have negative effects "cannot shown from transcript," Riggins Nevada, 504 127, 137. where court, without adequate justification, orders wear demonstrate actual prejudice make out violation. must prove "beyond reasonable doubt [shackling] contribute verdict obtained." Chapman 386 18, 24. 634-635. 136 W. 3d 481, reversed remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed dissenting opinion, SCALIA, joined, post, p. 635. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. Rosemary E. Percival argued cause briefs petitioner. Cheryl Caponegro Nield, Assistant Attorney General Missouri, respondent. With her Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon, General, James R. Layton, Solicitor, Evan J. Buchheim, General.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 We here offender violates hold their interest" — such 568-569 (1986); see also 343-344 (1970). 2 * July 1996, petitioner Carman robbed, shot, killed elderly couple. 1998, tried murders robbery. trial, required braces jury. App. 5; Tr. Oral Arg. 21, 25, 29. upheld 68 418, 432 (2002) (en banc). then held proceeding. 3 From first day 58. Before voir dire began, objected objection overruled. Ibid.; id., 41-55. During dire, renewed objection. overruled, stating "has been remain legirons chain." Id., After once objected, moving strike panel "because fact Mr. front makes them think . violent today." 58-59. "being takes fear minds." 59. proceeded 485 (Mo. 2004) 4 On appeal, claimed violated both these claims, writing "no restraints"; "claim impeded" "from participating proceedings"; "evidence" "a risk" "might flee repeat offender" who "killed victims avoid being returned custody." Ibid. "sufficient support discretion" require event demonstrated outcome prejudiced. Neither viewed venire prior nor restrained throughout entire alone, proof prejudice." claims error affirmed 5 granted certiorari review II 6 whether, general matter, permits criminal answer clear: phase; shackle 7 This deep roots common law. 18th Blackstone wrote "it laid down our antient books, that, under indictment highest nature," "must brought bar manner bonds; evident escape." Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 317 (1769) (footnote omitted); Coke, Institutes *34 ("If felons come judgement answer, they shall bonds, so pain away reason, constrain free will"). recognized "the time arraignment," proceedings before judge. supra, 317; Trial Christopher Layer, 16 How. St. 94, 99 (K. B. 1722). It meant appearing See King Waite, Leach 28, 36, 168 Eng. Rep. 117, 120 1743) ("[B]eing put upon immediately ordered [the defendant's] fetters knocked off"). 8 American traditionally followed Blackstone's "ancient" rule, "in extreme exceptional safe custody prisoner peace tribunal imperatively demand, manacles retained." Bishop, New Criminal Procedure § 955, 573 (4th ed. 1895); 572-573 ("[O]ne should unrestrained advantages, innocence. Our adhere pretty closely doctrine" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Roberts, 86 N. Super. 159, 163-165, 206 A. 2d 200, 203 (App. Div. 1965); French State, 377 P. 501, 502-504 (Okla.Crim.App. 1962); Eaddy People, 115 Colo. 488, 490, 174 717, 718 (1946) banc); McKay, 63 Nev. 118, 153-158, 165 389, 405-406 (1946); Blaine States, F. 284, 285 (CADC 1943) (per curiam); Blair Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 319, 327-329, 188 390, 393 1916); Hauser 210 Ill. 253, 264-267, 71 416, 421 (1904); Parker Territory, Ariz. 283, 287, 52 361, 363 (1898); Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 48-50, 50 580, 581 (1897); Rainey 20 Tex. 455, 472-473 (1886) (opinion White, J.); Smith, 11 Ore. 205, 343 (1883); Poe 78 Tenn. 673, 674-678 (1882); Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 592 (1877); People Harrington, 42 Cal. 165, 167 (1871); Wharton, Pleading Practice 540a, 369 (8th 1880); 12 Cyclopedia Law 529 (1904). While earlier disagreed about degree discretion afforded judges, 643-648 (THOMAS, dissenting), settled virtually exception embodying notions fundamental fairness: routinely, reason do so. 9 More recently, suggested version forms part Amendments' guarantee. Thirty-five years ago, considering unusually obstreperous defendant, sometimes permitted measures, restraints. 343-344. "binding gagging might possibly fairest most way handle" defendant. 344. But added "even contemplate technique arouses feeling person gagged except last resort." 10 Sixteen later, considered arrangement involved having uniformed personnel sit row courtroom's spectator section. allowed arrangement, deployment sort inherently prejudicial shackling, each trial." Estelle 425 503, 505 (1976) (making appear prison garb poses "fairness factfinding process" "essential policy"). Lower treated statements setting forth standard embodies rule. Courts commentators share close consensus right jury; dimension; overcome instance interests security, prevention, decorum. See, e. g., Dyas Poole, 309 586, 588-589 (CA9 2002) Harrell Israel, 672 632, 635 (CA7 1982) Herrick, 324 Mont. 76, 78-82, 101 755, 757-759 (2004); Hill 125 221, 233-234 (Ky. 2004); Turner, 143 715, 723-727, 23 499, 504-505 (2001) Myers 2000 OK CR ¶ 19, 17 1021, 1033; Shoen, 598 370, 374-377 (Minn. 1999); Lovell 347 Md. 623, 635-645, 702 261, 268-272 (1997); Jackson, 14 4th 1818, 1822-1830, Rptr. 588-594 (1993); Cooks 844 697, 722 (Tex. Crim. 1992) Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489, 504-508, 594 906, 914-915 (1991); Crawford, Idaho 87, 93-98, 577 1135, 1141-1146 (1978); Brown, 45 24, 26-28, 358 1362, 1363-1364 (1977); Tolley, 290 349, 362-371, 226 353, 365-369 (1976); 21A Am. Jur. 2d, §§ 1016, 1019 (1998); generally Krauskopf, Physical Restraint Defendant Courtroom, 15 Louis L. 351 (1970-1971); ABA Standards Justice: Discovery Jury 15-3.2, pp. 188-191 (3d 1996). procedural steps amount type needed justify restraints, warrant questioned principle. They emphasized importance preserving (reversing cases abuse), applied limits described cases. precedent, disapproving gave voice principle deeply embedded conclude those identify "due law" Such determination course into factors relied gauging potential problems III 13 ordinary punishment And we decide change circumstance difference. To so, examine motivate guilt-phase determine similar context. Judicial hostility primarily reflected concern suffering "tortures" "torments"—that "very painful" chains could cause. 351, 353 154, n. (1992) dissenting) (citing curbing restraints). opinions stressed prevent (for modern painful). Instead giving effect three legal principles. First, presumes innocent until proved guilty. Coffin 156 432, 453 (1895) (presumption "lies foundation administration law"). Visible fairness process. Cf. Estelle, 503. suggests justice system itself sees "need separate large." 569; cf. Super., 162, 202 ("[A] `ought Bar contumelious Manner; Hands tied together, Mark Ignominy Reproach some Danger Rescous [rescue] Escape'" (quoting Hawkins, Pleas Crown, ch. 308 (1716-1721) (section arraignments))). Second, Constitution, help accused secure provides counsel. Amdt. 6; Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 340-341 (1963). diminishes right. Shackles can interfere accused's "ability communicate" lawyer. Indeed, participate own say, freely choosing witness stand behalf. Cranburne's Case, 222 1696) ("Look you, keeper, you off prisoners irons bar, ease tried" Cal., (shackles "impos[e] burdens, pains, ., ten[d] confuse embarrass" defendants' "mental faculties," tend "materially abridge prejudicially affect rights"). Third, judges seek maintain judicial formal dignity, includes respectful treatment defendants, reflects matter issue, gravity Americans deprivation individual's liberty through punishment. seriousness purpose helps system's power inspire confidence behavior public whose demands serve. juries would undermine symbolic yet concrete objectives. "affront[s]" "dignity decorum seeking uphold." 344; Tr., (statement Hungerford) ("[T]o man plead life" justice, kingdom matters, king himself supposed personally present," Court"). There course, perils unavoidable. underestimate restrain dangerous attacks, give latitude individualized determinations. mindful tragedy result able themselves courtrooms. effect, permit B 19 militate against respect mentioned, defense proceedings. consideration applies. Hence effort presumption. Nonetheless, Although That decision, "`severity'" "`finality'" sanction, than guilt. 732 (1998) Gardner Florida, 430 357 (1977)). 21 "acute need" reliable decisionmaking death issue. Monge, Lockett Ohio, 438 604 (1978) (plurality opinion)). however, sense, nearly factor decisionmaking, even specifically argue point. Brief Respondent 25-27. character Zant Stephens, 462 862, 900 (1983) (REHNQUIST, concurring judgment) (character propensities "unique, judgment regarding deserves"). unquantifiable elusive determines ways, "thumb [on] death's side scale." Sochor 527, 532 Riggins, 142 (KENNEDY, (through control appearance, exert "powerful influence trial"). 22 Given similarly weighty considerations, requirement, judge, circumstances, shackling. doing, accommodates specific; reflect needs risks, IV argues found: (1) lacks restraints; (2) discretion; and, event, (3) prejudice. find 24 argument case, 58-59 (Deck's attorney stated "Mr. [was] jury" (emphasis added)); 59 (trial responded "him minds"). holding. said: "Trial Appellant impeded proceedings." 3d, added). suggest unaware Rather, refers awareness, hence kinds occurred. 25 second founders record's failure one calling discretion. contains informal findings. 632 (requiring case-by-case determination). raised 36-37 security. imposing already convicted." said "tak[e] of" juror's "minds," nowhere explained fear. chose used indisputably good one. 26 third fails prejudicial." 568. effects, consequences compelling clothing" forcing medicated transcript." seen complained (1967). V 27 For reasons, reversed, remanded further opinion. 28 ordered. Notes: A brief ofamici curiae urging affirmance California et al. Bill Lockyer, Manuel M. Medeiros, Solicitor Robert Anderson, Chief Mary Jo Graves, Senior Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Catherine Chatman Eric Christoffersen, Attorneys John Suthers, Interim Colorado, respective States follows: Troy Alabama, Jane Brady Delaware, Steve Carter Indiana, Jim Hood Mississippi, Mike McGrath Montana, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Brian Sandoval Petro Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Oregon, Henry D. McMaster South Carolina, Lawrence Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Rob McKenna Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., West Patrick Crank Wyoming. Thomas H. Speedy Rice Human Rights Committee Wales amici curiae. 29 whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. 30 murdering robbing He stood man, double murderer robber. Today holds rights appeared "`justified interest'" "specific trial," ante, 624, supported findings court. Tradition either among conclusion. reach result, resurrects old basis exists. needlessly extends trials sentencing. doing pays superficial heed gives conclusive errant dicta sprinkled trio holding defies sense ignores serious issues facing courts. I therefore respectfully dissent. 31 sister went home Zelma summer evening 1996. waiting nightfall, door Longs' home, Mrs. answered, asked directions. invited in, she assisted When moved toward leave, drew pistol, pointed Longs, lie face bed. Longs offering up money valuables house begging harm them. 32 finished house, edge bed, deliberating minutes over spare ignored pleas shot twice head. later told police because thought recognize him. 33 robbery sentence overturned appeal. had another hearing, chain, handcuffs. heard numerous burglary theft convictions assistance jailbreak prisoners. 34 resentencing, unanimously found six aggravating factors: committed engaged commission unlawful homicide; murdered victim pecuniary gain; depravity mind; avoiding lawful arrest; burglary; recommended, imposed, sentences. 35 sought postconviction relief sentence, asserting, things, equal protection requirement claim. 481 (2004) reasoned "there [Deck] indicated custody," thus abused 485. 36 My obligation wisdom desirability purely question: Does Due Process Clause Amendment preclude defendant? Therefore, bars practice. Medina 437, 446 (1992); Apprendi Jersey, 530 466, 500 (2000) concurring); Chicago Morales, 527 41, 102-106 (1999) dissenting). below, although trying extended rote dissimilar certain respects rise Despite existence law, begin address 1870's, vast majority issue 20th well after ratification Amendment. earliest more inform understanding inconclusive. 37 17th centuries bringing (1769); (hereinafter Coke). stemmed none concerns points, 630-633—the counsel, decorum, decisionmaking. Instead, ensured distracted defend himself. source states, prevented "any Torture ma[de] defence, Crime never great." Kelyng, Report Divers Cases Crown (1708).1 understandable, period heavy painful. fact, leather strips lined rubbing skin. T. Gross, Manacles World: Collector's Guide International Handcuffs, Leg Irons Miscellaneous Restraints (1997). Coke's admonition "[i]t abuse chained attained," Coke *34, suspected criminals wore pretrial confinement. Langbein, Origins Adversary 50, 197 (2003) Langbein). example, 1722 treason, Layer spent confinement irons. Layer's urged struck off, "sleep posture." 98 38 felony severe acute because, 1730's, charged treason. Langbein 170-172. "`accused speaks'" defended compelled respond witnesses, primary information 48; Faretta 422 806, 823-824 (1975). acknowledges, 626, extend arraignment.2 remained arraignment "he called advice counsel;" play main role defending 100 39 modern-day spend wearing chain handcuffs modest, insignificant, weight. suffering, let alone assist remains talk employed ensure write easily removed testifies, testifying ameliorated. Modern unlike traditional 40 concedes nothing 630, rest "three principles" posits ibid. Yet treats purposes merely types logical leap violate animating common-law leap, strays appropriate inquiry examining traditions Clause. 41 absence applies tradition supports conclusion Amendment's support, require, "particular trial" articulated record. Ante, 633. modern, longstanding, vintage. century. substantial differences contention state- federal-court decided 337 (1970), 501 (1976), 560 (1986), current reflection contained Holbrook. established recorded state-court appears century.3 Of question 1950's later.4 (including then-territorial) addressed century began 1870's.5 (1871), "seems country ancient enforced." 208, (1883). contemporary nascent late consistent unbroken suggests. 626-627. attempt virtual silence emergence Moreover, belated varied insufficient rights. Martinez Appeal Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 152, 159 (where history appeal much historical self-representation appeal). 43 reveal courts' divergent views undermining notion cabins 44 Mexico Territory great deference accorded reviewing presume lay silent. Kelly, 292, 304-306 (1882). Only "affirmatively" showed whatever" erroneous. Va. 65, 68-70, 209, 211 (1898) (following Kelly), part, Brewster, 164 173, 182, 261 77, 82 (1979). Alabama left far Faire 58 Ala. 74, 80-81 677 (1882) (decision manacle "left sound court" subject abuse-of-discretion review). Mississippi "may safely sheriffs, acts alike open ballot box."6 Lee 51 Miss. 566, 574 (1875), grounds, Wingo 62 311 (1884). By contrast, Oregon adopted restrictive approaches. "without necessity" kind 168-169. few took view, concluding warranted conduct "at 593 207-208, P., Kring Harrington discussion); 50-51, 581-582 (1897) (adopting Kring's test). 46 Texas intermediate position. Appeals deferred sheriff bring Ct. 472 (1886); 287-288, based crime arrested reward offered recapture). 47 agreed ought unfettered, breadth bare jailers leeway restrained; minority severely constrained instances limiting considered; smaller perhaps seeks, flatly requiring show, forth, "`essential 624. short, elevating federal command. 48 approach resolve divisions emerged continued express preference continued, disagree Many court,7 responsible guarding defendant.8 prejudicial.9 differed certainty established, small arising otherwise imminent threat.10 remaining range outside past escape,11 convictions,12 nature trial,13 prison,14 disposition violence,15 attributes size, strength, age.16 49 continue rely factors, undeniably probative 629. accepting rejects demonstrating relative engage disruptive threatening Coursolle, 255 Minn. 384, 97 472, 477 (1959) (defining "immediate trial"); Finch, 137 792, 850, 975 967, 1001 327-328, (1916); Temple, 194 237, 247-248, 92 869, 872 (1906); (case below) (appearing abandoned number present Here, people arrest, confessed. Evidence presented aided attempt. guilty murders, facts heinous propensity violence. says more. Since embraces reliance supporting reversing on-the-record is, unsupported additional obvious little me. recent years, developed, many prejudicial. rather firmly grounded principles, stems series ill-considered (1986). felt conform standards befitting 340-341. removing dicta, alternatives removal, citing contempt binding revulsion repeated Allen's dicta. 505; step describing 53 describes making. 628. depends exclusively Allen. Every cites traces reasoning decisions.17 These interpreting reaching independent content decisions represent practice, Amendment, interpreted, i. e., policy preferences, visible, painless 54 Wholly apart propriety Treating commonsense distinction stands convicted. 55 barring Even Young, 853 327, 350 (Utah 1993); Duckett 104 6, 11, 752 752, 755 (1988) Franklin, Ohio 18-19, 776 26, 46-47 (2002); Bello 547 So. 914, 918 (Fla. 1989) (applying sentencing, suggesting "lesser showing appropriate). suggestion imposes understood difference 350; Duckett, 755. 56 guilt-innocence phase. knows inmate, frequently status inmate ameliorates flowed seeing handcuffs.18 shuns sense. 57 regard forsake requires. Capital jurors know crime. strains credulity surprised sight large convicting surely jailed; murderers roam streets. blinks reality import beyond inevitable knowledge. Jurors understand situation dire. innocent, faces Confronted reality, lose fail, still lengthy imprisonment awaits apex. best opportunity courtroom, jail Westman, Handling Problem Courtroom: Use Expulsion Era, San Diego Justice 507, 526-527 (1994) Westman). addition, convicted, angry. turn ire failed Forrest, 614, 609 241, 248-249 (2005) (defendant brutally attacked sentencing). Or, hearing reporter. Byrnes, Y. 343, 350, 435, (1974) lunged trial); Harkness, 252 Kan. 510, 516, 847 1191, 1197 (1993) reporter arraignment). thoughts enter mind docile. crimes unremarkable suffers comport reality. 60 rationales proffered newly minted likewise fail precludes purports stringent adopts leaves real room ensuring safety courtroom. 61 offers rationale application 632. forced amorphous "accuracy" true demand reliability precedes imposition (1998). explained, farfetched conjecture baldly asserts defense. 631. certainly agree impermissible seriously impair caused impaired mental faculties. communicating Counsel sat next him; fully capable speaking Likewise, unable wished convey Had way, least hands easier write. arrangements. Alvarez, 155, 191, 926 365, (1996); Jimerson, 820 500, 502 1991). expresses keep taking behalf mercy. again, entirely hypothetical. life. adopts, others assertion, presumed government contrary. assuming imagined, ameliorated wishes stand. De Wolf 96 Okla. Cr. 382, 383, 256 193 1953) (leg stand). says, requires categorical demanding showing. solution overinclusive. necessary offend. 631-632. misunderstands precedent. No ever intimated, held, "courtroom's dignity," 631, individual enforceable defendants. Certainly, inherent observe appropriately. Estes 381 532, 540-541 (1965). 65 order, personal proportions. Far viewing invoke, limit implicated. why proves incapable abiding rules entitled himself, 834-835, 46, 343. society's operate effectively. 66 unwarranted accords "courtroom decorum," affront dignity poses. indignity robber Nation's exposed accounts daily, brutal walk courthouse halls Courthouses places members judiciary frequent contact offends sensibilities Nation delicate constitutions. 67 Finally, "[t]he decisionmaking." flawed. relatively recently phases conducted separately. reveals prohibiting dangerousness exist just likely convict seemingly placid neither position perceived future rings hollow adopts. real. Judges possibility confederates smuggle weapon present, attack hands. 1999, Berks County, Pennsylvania, "defendant bench beat unconscious." Calhoun, Violence Toward Officials, 576 Annals Academy Political Social Science 54, (2001). One study Pennsylvania projected 20-year career, district justices percent probability physically assaulted times. Harris, Kirschner, Rozek, & Weiner, Workplace: State's Experience, 38, Sheriffs bailiffs rate homicide workplace, times higher national average. Faust Raffo, Local Response Courthouse Safety, 91, 93-94 (2001); Weiner al., Safe Secure: Protecting Review (Winter 2000). 69 problem worsening. According Accounting Office (GAO), changed: "[T]here `hard-core tough guys' multiple-defendant cases," work marshals increasingly difficult. GAO, Security: Comprehensive Risk-Based Program Should Be Fully Implemented (July 1994). Security particularly systems, limited manpower resources leave act 46. Those vary rural urban areas, areas supply minimal weakest itself, restrained. Westman 526. 70 officials bystanders, 629, i.e., Confining analysis trial-specific Under test, particulars (being nonspecific defendant) irrelevant, on-duty officers standing guard time, multiple exits. Forbidding unfortunately faced 72 risks lives personnel, corresponding benefit require. will");Cranburne's (prisoners "should tried"); Conductor Generalis 403 (J. 1801) (reciting same); ("[t]hat kept salva arcta custodia, torment prisoner"). occurred occasions, ironsTrial 1722) arraigned irons); (fetters pleaded); Burns, Abridgment, (1792) ("The escape, irons"). Mitchell, 824 469, 473-474 1991); Smith 773 139, 140-141 (Wyo. 1989); Frye 231 381-382, 345 267, 276 456 13, (Me. 1983); Baugh, 456, 462-463, 571 779, 782-783 Brookins 354 422, (Del. 1976); Phifer, 203, 219, 225 786, 797 Lemire, 526, 531, 910 (1975); Anthony 521 486, 496 (Alaska 1974); Palmigiano, 112 I. 348, 357-358, 855, 861 (1973); Jones 686, 693-694, 666, 670 (1971); Polidor, 130 Vt. 34, 39, 770, Moen, 94 477, 479-480, 491 858, 860-861 Yurk, 13-14 (1969); Thomas, Mich. 126, 134 352, (1965); Nutley, Wis. 564-565, 129 (1964), grounds Stevens, 451, 463, 132 502, 508 Brooks, Haw. 82, 84-86, 352 611, 613-614 (1960); 476-477 (handcuffing witnesses); Allbright Ga. 251, 252-253, 88 468, 469-470 (1955); Roscus, 415, 428, 109 (1954); Snyder, 305 790, 791, 113 302 (1953); 491, 161-163, 408-409 (also discussing 1929 Nevada statute conviction); Rayburn 200 Ark. 920-922, 141 535-536 (1940); Shultz 131 Fla. 757, 758, 179 764, 765 (1938); Commonwealth Millen, 289 Mass. 441, 477-478, 480 (1935); Pierpont 83-84, 195 264, 266-267 (1934); Corey 126 42-43, 283-284 (1939); Bradbury 56, 59-61, 299 512 1931); Hanrahan, 434, 435-437, 207 224, (1926); 111 Neb. 384-386, 196 684, 685-686 (1923); McPherson 178 Ind. 583, 584-585, 984, 985 (1912); Kenny, 77 236, 240-241, 859, (1907); Bone, 114 Iowa 537, 541-543, 87 509 (1901). North Dakota pass reported decision. 3,supra. bears noting, 1817 Georgia enacted Prince's Digest (1822). Its 1955. 469-470. 210-211 (1898), (1979) (relying (1976)); Weber, Pa. 153, 165-166, 484 (1895); Upstone 169, La. Ann. 677-678 438, 441-442 (1876); 569-574 311, 315-316 (1884); 168-169 (1871). context grand too required, finding transport himCommonwealth A., 484. See,e. court); Agiasottelis, 336 12, 16, 386, 389 (1957) reluctant precautions deems removal sustained"); Ark., 920-921, 536 ("Trial prisoner's harming connected harmed"); D., 436, W., ("It universal unreasonable restraint exercised restraint"); Ind., 585, E., ("[W]hether judge"). Mass., 477-478. applicable situations handcuffed prejudice, observations constitute mistrial"); Martin, 22, (Colo. 1983) (shackling prejudical); Gilbert, 121 305, 310, 429 323, 327 (1981) prejudicial); Moore, 837, 840, 866, 867 (1980) ("[A]bsent strongly persuasive guess court's] assessment needs"); I., 358, 861; Vt., 773; Norman, 239, 242, (1970); Haw., 613-614; Brewer, 218 1287, 1299, 254 834, 840 (1934) ("[T]his prejudiced handcuffed"), Wilson, 406 442, 449, (Iowa 1987); Minn., prejudicial). "some Ky., 393; 247, (1906) 592-593 (1877)). Chase, 738, 740, 217 195, (1966) (attempted plus offense restraints); App., (prison sufficed shackles); Bryant, Misc. 446, 448, 166 59, (attempts "on occasions 204 1965) ("In addition reputation, known character, weighed" (second emphasis Idaho, 480-481, 861-862 (that days together uphold him); Nev., 164, 409 (prior army court-martial desertion, account); Deveny, 767, 247 128, (1952) previously prison); murders). 165-167, 204. 18-20, "had stabbed fellow pen dispute turning light"). Va., 381, (permitting "defendant's temperament"); 95 293-294, 245 107, 114-115 1952) "character" "disposition person, himself"). ("A various restrained" "physical attributes"); Dennis, 250 125, 137-138, 720, 724 (1967) (no garb, leg-irons venire" "`prison case'" vigorous twenty-eight twenty-nine age, feet tall, weighing approximately hundred twenty twenty-five pounds"). curiam) Holbrook), amended superseded 934 Allen Estelle); 80-81, 758-759 Holbrook); 233 724-727, banc) 842, 997-999 banc), relies ¶¶ 46-47, 1033 Owens 1982 187, 4-6, 654 657, 658-659, 375-376 1999) 638-639, 268-269 (1997) (same); 1829-1830, 593-594 Duran, 282, 290-291, 545 1322, 1327 (in bank), Allen); Marquez 725 217, 230 1987) Moody 827 875, 892 505, 508, 916 (1991) 95-96, P.2d 1143-1144 1363 (1977) 367, 367 (same). also, 496, proposition manacles, avoided manifest necessity); 180-181, 81-82 overrule reasonably Asch 945, 963-964 2003) prejudicial, proceedings); overruling refused prejudice); Madsen, 1134, 1136 Harlow 105 1049, 1060 2005) knew witnesses inmates, 236 penitentiary mitigated naturally attendant Woodard, 970, 974, 437 273, 275 confined, diminished); Payne 460, (1987) inmate-witnesses "were inside penal institution"); Moss, 192 405, 407, 111, Jessup 409, 413, 269 374, 376 (1971) unrealistic indeed reversible transportation institution hall condition"); Chacon, 765, 778, 447 106, (1968) bank) attacking unreasonable"); La., 138, considerable size case'").

Classification Label: 3