February 5, 2006

Handcuffs and Juries

by PG

Some bloggers have objected to District Judge Marcia Cooke's saying that Jose Padilla should not wear handcuffs and ankle chains during court appearances unless government officials can show that he poses an immediate safety threat. These objections may arise from a misunderstanding about how criminal defendants normally are treated. It is standard in most courtrooms not to shackle defendants, particularly in sight of the jury, because of concerns that this will prejudice the jury. Of course, if the defendant has a track record of misbehaving in court -- jumping around, lunging at people, etc. -- he will be cuffed for the sake of order and safety (as approved by the Supreme Court in Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (noting that shackles may be necessary "to control a contumacious defendant"), but defendants have won habeas petitions based on unnecessary cuffing.

There was a great deal of discussion about whether this is a good policy in March of last year, when an unrestrained defendant who was alleged to have committed rape grabbed a deputy's gun and killed her as well as a judge and court reporter. Padilla is said to have behaved himself throughout his detainment and prosecution, and the only justification for treating him as a threat to courtroom safety might be his prior conviction for murder. Notwithstanding Padilla's fame as the "dirty bomber," the terrorism charges against him are solely for conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas -- Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo -- with no direct mention of Al Qaeda, only an accusation that Padilla trained for jihad in Afghanistan. This indictment is not indicative of present dangerousness, though it does inform one of Padilla's wonderful pseudonym "Abu Abdullah the Puerto Rican."

Perhaps if we are concerned about prejudicing juries, while simultaenously recognizing that some defendants need to be cuffed, we should just make shackles a standard policy for all defendants, even those accused of nonviolent white collar crimes. I want to see Ken Lay going into the courtroom in handcuffs and ankle chains! Not just for my personal entertainment, but also because if cuffs become wholly standard, then they will be less prejudicial. As it stands, any informed juror who sees a restrained defendant automatically assumes that this person must be really dangerous instead of merely a regular defendant. When every defendant is shackled, no defendant is shackled. Or something like that.

February 5, 2006 4:18 PM | TrackBack

Last time I checked, Ken Lay wasn't indicted for a plan to lay a third of the population of Los Angeles to waste.

Padilla is a sworn enemy of the United States.

As thus, he presents a clear and present security threat.

That in and of itself should have been reason to cuff.

Padilla should have been detained as an enemy combatant; not a criminal defendant.

Posted by: Psycmeistr at February 9, 2006 8:40 PM

Psyc, neither was Padilla indicted for such a plan. Try reading the actual indictment, please; if the PDF was too fuzzy, here's the Solictor General's brief in HTML on the Justice Department's website about whether the president had the authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. Search it for an allegation about "laying a third of the population of Los Angeles to waste." You won't find it. Search the indictment for a charge that Padilla was involved in anything other than a "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country."

I take that charge seriously, particularly because one of the foreign countries where jihadists focus attention is a place my family visits and lives; India has been dealing with Islamic terrorism long before most Americans thought about it. However, it does not make Padilla a "sworn enemy of the United States."

But if you're lucky, you and others who propound misinformation will poison the jury sufficiently that the people who decide what ultimately happens to Padilla will pay no attention to the actual charges against him at all. They'll be calling for the chair -- "Death to all sworn enemies of America!" -- and the judge will have to tell them that it's not actually an option for charges of conspiracy to kill furriners.

Posted by: PG at February 10, 2006 7:11 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter

Powered by
Movable Type 5.02