Court Opinion

ID: 9723342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:12:09.860757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:47.282585
License: Public Domain

Rogoshesxe, Justice
(dissenting).
I would grant defendant a new trial because of the immeasurable, inerasable, and necessarily prejudicial impact of his bound- and-gagged appearance before the jury. Gagging and binding defendant under the circumstances was, in my opinion, an excessive remedy — especially where the jury must have been utterly perplexed as to the reason for such restraints. The fact that defendant was given a choice does not eliminate judicial responsibility for the sanction imposed.
But more than that, I would hold that gagging a defendant is so inhumane as to be out of place in a court of justice and therefore not an available remedy. Expulsion of defendant from the courtroom is an approved, readily available, and totally adequate remedy in every type of disruption reported or imaginable by those who have studied the problem. See, e. g., Dorsen and Friedman, Disorder in the Court, Report of Association of Bar of City of New York, Special Committee on Courtroom Conduct. Finally, I believe that after defendant’s removal reasonable efforts should have been made to enable him to at least hear the proceedings at the place of his confinement.