Court Opinion

ID: 9530971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:59.883123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.389337
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting: I do not agree with the court’s holding that the action of the trial judge constituted an abuse of the discretion vested in him. The juvenile probation officer’s April 7 report indicates defendant had been referred to that office by the Somonauk Police Department in March of that year. He had been an habitual runaway since the age of 10. On April 8 the court adjudged him a minor in need of supervision and placed him in the La Salle County Group Home. He became, the May 8 supplemental report states, “a serious discipline problem” at the Group Home. The May 2 episode at the La Salle County Detention Home resulted, the report continues, in hospitalization of the teacher who had suffered a broken leg, arm and nose. Thereafter, defendant was transferred by the court to the Kankakee County Detention Home, a more secure facility than the La Salle County Home, pending the adjudicatory hearing. While the report and supplemental information are included in this record, the extent to which the judge was personally aware of its contents prior to the hearings is not entirely clear. It is not unfair to presume some recollection on his part, however, since defendant had been before the court several weeks earlier when he had been adjudged a minor in need of supervision. This, it seems to me, is relevant in considering whether permitting defendant to remain handcuffed constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. As Mr. Justice Stengel emphasizes in his cogent dissenting' opinion in the appellate court, trial judges are vested with discretion in determining whether the likelihood of escape or violent conduct by a defendant indicates the desirability of some restraint. (21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law sec. 240 (1965); Loux v. United States (9th Cir. 1968), 389 F.2d 911, 919-20, cert. denied (1968), 393 U.S. 867, 21 L. Ed. 2d 135, 89 S. Ct. 151.) It is not necessary that the court wait until an attempt to escape or a dangerous act occurs in the courtroom. Loux, at 919-20. The majority relies upon our opinion in Boose, which was a substantially different situation. There, instead of a simple pair of handcuffs, “[t]he defendant was brought to court wearing handcuffs, which were threaded through shackles attached to a restraining belt wrapped around his waist. His shoelaces had been removed.” (People v. Boose (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 261, 264.) There, instead of a judge, the defendant appeared before a jury, where the possibility of prejudice was certainly enhanced. The majority cites, as authority for its holding, no case which did not involve a jury trial, including Eaddy v. People (1946), 115 Colo. 488, 492, 174 P.2d 717, 719. I note, too, that the partial sentence quoted from Eaddy in the majority opinion concludes with: “, except as the necessary safety and decorum of the court may otherwise require.” (115 Colo. 488, 492, 174 P.2d 717, 719.) Also, it is noteworthy that in each of the cases, other than Boose and Duran, cited by the majority, the convictions were upheld, and in Duran multiple errors in addition to the shackling, contributed to the reversal. The Boose opinion and the majority here have relied heavily upon the American Bar Association Standards, as is indicated by the quotations in the majority opinion. Those standards, however, focus primarily upon the prejudicial effect upon a jury, and we have none here. The trial judge observed that there was “poor security” in the courtroom, which the majority suggests is preferably remedied by summoning additional guards. Implicit in this suggestion is the view that calling more officers to guard the defendant somehow has a less prejudicial effect upon the judge than handcuffing the defendant. To me the exact opposite is likely. While I doubt that a judge will be prejudiced in either event, the argument that he will be more so if the prisoner appears before him in handcuffs than if the judge is told it will be necessary to summon additional guards before the prisoner is brought in is too sophisticated for me to accept. Similarly, the argument that the handcuffs restrict defendant’s ability to effectively communicate with his counsel is, in my judgment, simply not realistic. They may have done so in Boose where the cuffs were attached to a restraining belt, but I do not agree that effective assistance to counsel was restricted here in any significant way. Lastly, the majority urges that the handcuffing jeopardizes the value of the presumption of innocence and demeans our system of justice. I am by no means certain that significant loss actually occurs in either of those areas under the circumstances in this case, but, in any event, they are not the sole factors to be considered. The facts that defendant was an habitual runaway, that, while being held in a detention facility, he prevented help from reaching a teacher being severely beaten by another inmate, and that defendant might now try to escape in view of the prospect of additional confinement, were not irrelevant. Nor do we know the age, sex, condition or number of courtroom personnel present who might be able to assist in restraining defendant if an escape were attempted. The trial judge is ordinarily far better informed on such matters than we and better able to assess the security needs in his courtroom. We know from our review of the cases before us that individuals the age of defendant or younger engage in violent conduct, including homicides. While I agree that the trial judge’s discretion to permit restraints should be exercised sparingly, I am not convinced that the trial judge’s action here, where there was no jury involved, constituted an abuse of discretion requiring a new adjudicatory hearing. I would accordingly reverse the appellate court and affirm the trial court.