tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post8538943853796794956..comments2023-10-23T14:41:07.479-05:00Comments on Katfish....Ponders...........: Sheley Forcibly Removed From Courtroom, Motion to Represent Self Denied, Battery Trial Starts September 21katfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-46468457247348686242009-09-20T21:48:49.916-05:002009-09-20T21:48:49.916-05:00Katfish, I'm just catching up on my reading an...Katfish, I'm just catching up on my reading and I want to thank you for your excellent coverage of this case.<br /><br />Now, it appears you are brave and corageous to even be in the courtroom with this loose cannon.<br /><br />I am looking forward to the first trial and your accounts.ritanitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798894468241676294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7611061455662911041.post-32334910465326354532009-09-20T20:50:32.614-05:002009-09-20T20:50:32.614-05:00At another blog that posts this entry it was asked...At another blog that posts this entry it was asked in a comment, " Where does the law stand on being shackled in front of a jury? Would this give a reason to appeal?"<br /><br />This was my response:<br />Judge Mathers ordered the court reporter to keep Sheley's final outburst on the record(before being dragged out of the courtroom). I think this being in the transcript will give the state some back bone if they were to decide to file a motion requesting he be shackled. <br /> <br />I found a ruling from the 6th circuit of the USSC of a case in Michigan, People v. Ruimveld, 639 N.W.2d 812 (Mich. 2002). The court found it was an error to shackle the defendant and in this case the lower court also refused the defense request to cover the shackles. Three of the four judges ruled it was a harmless error and withheld the conviction. <br />The first case the court cited in it's ruling was Illinois v. Allen.<br /> <br />In Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337(1970), the Court held that where a prisoner was intentionally disruptive at trial, and where he was informed that he could remain in the courtroom as long as he ceased his disruptions, his constitutional right to be present throughout his trial was waived when he chose to continue disrupting the proceedings.<br />In so holding, Justice Black noted for the Court that:<br />[t]rying a defendant for a crime while he sits bound and gagged before the judge and jury would to an extent comply with that part of the Sixth Amendment’s purposes that accords the defendant an opportunity to confront the witnesses at trial. <br /><br />But even to contemplate such a technique, much less see it, arouses a feeling that no defendant should be tried while shackled and gagged except as a last resort. Not only is it<br />possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the<br />jury’s feelings about the defendant, but the use of this technique is itself something<br />of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.<br /><br />Id. at 344. Nonetheless, the Court held that in some situations, binding and gagging a defendant might be appropriate, due to safety or security concerns for all parties involved in the trial. Id.Here is the link in case it doesn't repost in the copy and paste:<br /> <br />http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0186p-06.pdf<br /><br />If Sheley isn't shackled I think the far side of the courtroom will be a popular spot in the gallery.katfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17677596326492200191noreply@blogger.com