Avoiding trial through continuous contempt of court

[whc.03grady]

Another thread got me thinking…what would happen were a person on trial for, say, murder, but they were completely uncooperative with the entire process, including their own defense? Like, what if they just said “fuck you” each and every time anyone asked them any question whatsoever? They’d get locked up for contempt of court, sure, but how long can this go on? Could they manage to forestall their actual trial and just end up jailed indefinitely for contempt, and avoid a possible capital conviction?

[whc.03grady]

Assume their conduct begins at the very beginning: they’re apprehended in the midst of a killing spree, and from then on, the only thing they say is “fuck you”.

[DataX]

I believe in some cases they are gagged - in others they are forced to observe by closed circuit from another room.

That tactic won’t work.

[The_Second_Stone]

The judge appoints counsel for them and then either gags and binds them, or throws them out of the courtroom.

[AK84]

The question has been answered well enough above.

Courts have seen it all You can be sure that if you can imagine it, it has occured already and is in the law reports. I think its calledRule 34.

[pravnik]

This has been tried, a lot. If the defendant repeatedly disrupts court, the judge may rule that they be physically restrained, or that they have “voluntarily absented themselves from proceedings,” meaning that they have indicated by their actions that they waive their right to be present. If that’s the case trial will proceed without the defendant present.

[pravnik]

Some U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the issue:

“The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him …’ We have held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the guarantees of this clause obligatory upon the States. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965). One of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused’s right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial. Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 (1892). The question presented in this case is whether an accused can claim the benefit of this constitutional right to remain in the courtroom while at the same time he engages in speech and conduct which is so noisy, disorderly, and disruptive that it is exceedingly difficult or wholly impossible to carry on the trial…”

“After his indictment and during the pretrial stage, the petitioner ( Allen) refused court-appointed counsel and indicated to the trial court on several occasions that he wished to conduct his own defense. After considerable argument by the petitioner, the trial judge told him, ‘I’ll let you be your own lawyer, but I’ll ask Mr. Kelly (court- appointed counsel) (to) sit in and protect the record for you, insofar as possible.’ 'The trial began on September 9, 1957. After the State’s Attorney had accepted the first four jurors following their voir dire examination, the petitioner began examining the first juror and continued at great length. Finally, the trial judge interrupted the petitioner, requesting him to confine his questions solely to matters relating to the prospective juror’s qualifications. At that point, the petitioner started to argue with the judge in a most abusive and disrespectful manner. At last, and seemingly in desperation, the judge asked appointed [397 U.S. 337 , 340] counsel to proceed with the examination of the jurors. The petitioner continued to talk, proclaiming that the appointed attorney was not going to act as his lawyer. He terminated his remarks by saying, ‘When I go out for lunchtime, you’re (the judge) going to be a corpse here.’ At that point he tore the file which his attorney had and threw the papers on the floor. The trial judge thereupon stated to the petitioner, ‘One more outbreak of that sort and I’ll remove you from the courtroom.’ This warning had no effect on the petitioner. He continued to talk back to the judge, saying, ‘There’s not going to be no trial, either. I’m going to sit here and you’re going to talk and you can bring your shackles out and straight jacket and put them on me and tape my mouth, but it will do no good because there’s not going to be no trial.’ After more abusive remarks by the petitioner, the trial judge ordered the trial to proceed in the petitioner’s absence. The petitioner was removed from the courtroom. The voir dire examination then continued and the jury was selected in the absence of the petitioner. ‘After a noon recess and before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the petitioner, appearing before the judge, complained about the fairness of the trial and his appointed attorney. He also said he wanted to be present in the court during his trial. In reply, the judge said that the petitioner would be permitted to remain in the courtroom if he ‘behaved (himself) and (did) not interfere with the introduction of the case.’ The jury was brought in and seated. Counsel for the petitioner then moved to exclude the witnesses from the courtroom. The (petitioner) protested this effort [397 U.S. 337 , 341] on the part of his attorney, saying: ‘There is going to be no proceeding. I’m going to start talking and I’m going to keep on talking all through the trial. There’s not going to be no trial like this. I want my sister and my friends here in court to testify for me.’ The trial judge thereupon ordered the petitioner removed from the courtroom.’ 413 F.2d, at 233-234.
After this second removal, Allen remained out of the courtroom during the presentation of the State’s case-in-chief, except that he was brought in on several occasions for purposes of identification. During one of these latter appearances, Allen responded to one of the judge’s questions with vile and abusive language. After the prosecution’s case had been presented, the trial judge reiterated his promise to Allen that he could return to the courtroom whenever he agreed to conduct himself properly. Allen gave some assurances of proper conduct and was permitted to be present through the remainder of the trial, principally his defense, which was conducted by his appointed counsel…”

“It is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the hallmarks of all court proceedings in our country. The flagrant disregard in the courtroom of elementary standards of proper conduct should not and cannot be tolerated. We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations. We think there are at least three constitutionally permissible ways for a trial judge to handle an obstrep- [397 U.S. 337 , 344] erous defendant like Allen: (1) bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for contempt; (3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly.”

Illinois v, Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970).

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

I believe the Chicago 7 tried those tactics, in the same state as Mr. Allen and with similar results.

[Colibri]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

I believe the Chicago 7 tried those tactics, in the same state as Mr. Allen and with similar results.

Bobby Seale was one of the original Chicago Eight, and was ordered bound and gagged due to his outbursts. His trial was later severed from the rest of what became the Chicago Seven.

[Blakeyrat]

Not the US, but Stephen Gough might be an interesting example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Colibri

Bobby Seale was one of the original Chicago Eight, and was ordered bound and gagged due to his outbursts. His trial was later severed from the rest of what became the Chicago Seven.

That’s what I was trying to say, except for the part where I didn’t know what I was talking about. Though I thought Hoffmann and Rubin also were disruptive, albeit more as protest/theater than as strategy.

[j_sum1]

We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case.

contumacious
Nice word!

[Derleth]

Some years ago, I posted a similar question: How many mistrials can one person force?

In that thread, gagging was mentioned as something that’s not done much these days, with the modern alternative being closed-circuit television so the accused can see their accusers and so on but not disrupt the process.

[FrankJBN]

AFAIK, all of the Chicago 7 defendants and their attorneys were issued varied contempt citations.

I have the LP record “Bound and Chained” which is a re-enactment of the transcript of Bobby Seale’s trial.

[Crotalus]

It has been a long time since I read Helter Skelter, but I’m pretty sure that Charles Manson and friends tried this as well. It didn’t work then, either.

[Leo_Bloom]

Uh, OP, didn’t you use to be the caretaker?

Manson post made me ask all of a sudden.