Missouri held another sentencing hearing, and Deck was again sentenced to death. This time, he was dressed in leg irons, handcuffs and a belly chain, which is fastened around a defendant's middle.
Everybody was set to begin voir dire, then defense counsel objected to his client's metal wear. He was overruled, and that decision was confirmed all the way up to the state's highest court. Deck appealed to the U.S. Supremes, who accepted the case, issued an opinion on May 23, 2005, in Deck vs. Missouri.
The Court answered but one question. Is it constitutionally kosher for a state to parade a visibly shackled defendant before a jury of his peers, during a capital trial's penalty phase? In a 7-2 opinion, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that the Constitution prohibits this practice, unless, in the trial court's discretion, the government demonstrates an "essential state interest."
Like what? Courtroom security. Not so long ago, we witnessed the tragedy that can result from lack of protection: the Atlanta courtroom shootings. The onus is on the state to substantiate that interest. Arguably, Atlanta's nightmare was an easy case. Brian Nichols had a known history of violent misbehavior. But, it's useful to look at the history of shackles, cited by the Supreme Court in the Deck decision.
The majority stated that "the law has long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during a capital trial's guilt phase, permitting shackling only in the presence of a special need. Early English cases and lower court shackling doctrine dating back to the Nineteenth century (make it) clear that this is a basic element of due process, protected by the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."
It's not difficult to understand how a jury might be swayed by a shackled defendant. What would you think, watching an individual, who's already been convicted for captial murder, shuffle in all chained up? Maybe that he's rather dangerous? Perhaps that if he weren't bound, he might attack someone in the courtroom? Or escape? That's what I'd think. Then, might you be more inclined to vote to sentence him to death, rather than to life?
Go To Page: 1 2
