Court Opinion

ID: 9369587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 14:07:42.838405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.115770
License: Public Domain

State of New York                                                          OPINION
Court of Appeals                                            This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision
                                                              before publication in the New York Reports.

 No. 9
 The People &c.,
         Respondent,
      v.
 Oscar Sanders,
         Appellant.

 Chase McReynolds, for appellant.
 Philip Tisne, for respondent.

 RIVERA, J.:

        The “long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a trial”

 in the absence “of a special need” (Deck v Missouri, 544 US 622, 626 [2005]) applies

 during the jury’s reading of its verdict and the court’s polling of the jurors. Here, the trial

                                              -1-
                                             -2-                                            No. 9

judge violated this constitutional due process prohibition by ordering defendant to be

handcuffed when the jury returned to announce its verdict without providing an

on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. Because this error was not

harmless, it requires reversal of defendant’s conviction and a new trial.

                                             ***

       Defendant Oscar Sanders was tried before a jury on one count of attempted assault

in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [2]) and one count of assault in the second degree

(id. § 120.05 [2]) arising from a physical altercation with the victim and two counts of

criminal contempt resulting from his subsequent violations of an order of protection. After

the jury advised the court that it had reached a verdict but before the jury returned to the

courtroom, defense counsel observed defendant in handcuffs. Counsel made the following

objection in open court:

       “I understand that it’s this court’s policy, I just learned this minutes ago, to
       keep my client in handcuffs while the jury comes out and renders their
       verdict. But it’s my understanding that the law allows for the defense and
       [p]rosecution to poll the jury with the idea in mind that perhaps the unanimity
       of the jury can be questioned when the foreperson announces a unanimous
       jury. And with that in mind, being that the defendant is in handcuffs while
       they announce that verdict, especially in the case of if it’s a verdict of guilty,
       lends pressure to anyone who might dissent during that polling to be
       influenced negatively against anyone in handcuffs, and certainly in this case,
       I would say that’s true for [defendant]. So I’m asking you to leave him
       uncuffed during the reading of the verdict for that reason.”

The court responded: “All right. The application is denied. Bring in the panel.” A court

officer then directed everyone in the courtroom to stand as the jury entered and, after the

jurors had entered, the trial judge ordered defendant to once again stand for the reading of

the verdict. The jury then found defendant guilty on the above counts and the court

                                             -2-
                                             -3-                                         No. 9

confirmed the verdict by polling the jurors. Defendant was subsequently sentenced as a

persistent felony offender to an aggregate term of 15 years to life imprisonment.

       On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning, in relevant part,

that “[a]ny error in defendant being handcuffed, without any explanation on the record,

during the rendition of the verdict and the polling of the jury was harmless” because the

jury had already reached its verdict and “[d]efendant’s suggestion that jurors may have

been inclined to repudiate their verdicts during polling, but were influenced to refrain from

doing so by the sight of defendant in handcuffs, is highly speculative” (194 AD3d 652, 653

[1st Dept 2021]). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (37 NY3d 1029

[2021]). We now reverse.

       The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution prohibits states from physically restraining a defendant during a criminal trial

without an on-the-record, individualized assessment of the “state interest specific to a

particular trial” (Deck, 544 US at 628-629, 632; see also People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145,

153 [2011]). A trial court therefore has a constitutional obligation to conduct “close judicial

scrutiny” before ordering a defendant restrained (Holbrook v Flynn, 475 US 560, 568

[1986] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Estelle v Williams, 425 US 501, 504

[1976]). It is undisputed that no such scrutiny occurred here and therefore the trial judge

committed a constitutional error by ordering defendant handcuffed without placing the

                                             -3-
                                             -4-                                         No. 9

special need for such restraints on the record (Deck, 544 US at 628-629; Clyde, 18 NY3d

at 152-153).*

       The prosecution’s claim that the constitutional prohibition articulated in Deck does

not apply during the reading of the jury verdict and polling of individual jurors is meritless.

First, Deck involved the application of the constitutional prohibition against restraint

during the punishment phase of a capital case, which necessarily occurred after the guilty

verdict had been entered (see 544 US at 624-626). Second, the reading of the verdict is an

integral part of the guilt-determination phase. As the Court explained in People v Salemmo,

citing to CPL 310.80, “a verdict reported by the jury is not final unless properly recorded

and accepted by the court” (38 NY2d 357, 361 [1976], citing CPL 310.80). Indeed, in

accordance with CPL 310.80, the trial court must order the jury to resume deliberations

when polling elicits a negative answer from one or more jurors. As a consequence, until

the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and, if polled, confirms

the verdict, there is no finding of guilt, defendant is still presumed innocent, and the

*
  Contrary to the prosecution’s assertion, defendant’s claim is preserved. To preserve an
issue for appeal, “counsel must register an objection and apprise the court of grounds upon
which the objection is based ‘at the time’ of the allegedly erroneous ruling ‘or at any
subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same’ ”
(People v Cantave, 21 NY3d 374, 378 [2013], quoting CPL 470.05 [2]). Here, defense
counsel noted his opposition to the handcuffing on the record based on a fear that the jurors
would draw negative inferences about defendant by observing him physically restrained.
Defense counsel’s “protest” was “sufficient” to preserve the handcuffing issue since it
made the defense’s “position” about the handcuffing “known to the court[,]” thereby
furnishing the trial judge with an opportunity to either: (1) provide an individualized
explanation for the handcuffs; or (2) order the handcuffs removed (CPL 470.05 [2]). The
trial judge did neither and instead cursorily denied the motion.
                                             -4-
                                             -5-                                       No. 9

constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in full

force.

         Under the applicable harmless error standard, we cannot say that this constitutional

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see Clyde, 18 NY3d at 153-154; see also

People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238 [1975]). The error here requires reversal of

defendant’s conviction and a new trial (see People v Williams, 25 NY3d 185, 195 [2015]).

Our decision renders defendant’s remaining claims academic (see e.g. People v Murray,

39 NY3d 10, 16 [2022]). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be

reversed and a new trial ordered.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered. Opinion by Judge Rivera. Acting Chief Judge
Cannataro and Judges Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Troutman concur.

Decided February 9, 2023

                                             -5-