Can a US judge order the defendant to be removed from the court room for most of or the entire trial? Let’s assume a criminal offence, a defendant that wants to be present in the court room and a sufficiently disruptive behaviour said defendant every time they step inside.
Are there parts of the entire process where the judge absolutely has no choice but to let the defendant into the court? If yes, are there ways for the judge to follow these rules, but still prevent disruptions? A zoom call? A soundproof box?
I find this question interesting because I’ve seen court videos which are dealing with basic motions that the attorney should be able to deal with on their own yet the defendant is required to be there.
Less restrictive methods are usually tried first, depending on the type of disruption the defendant engages in.
If they’re a spitter, then the judge will order a spit hood. If they are prone to stabbing their attorney in the neck with a pen, their limbs will be restrained out of sight of a jury.
And yes, if none of that works, they can be ordered to participate in proceedings from an isolated room, where they have access to video camera and microphones.
It’s a pain in the ass, but these methods are used more commonly than many may suppose.
A defendant has an absolute right to be present during all proceedings where their life or liberty is at risk of being taken away. But “present” has been interpreted more liberally in current times.
IANAL, but I spent a lot of time as an employee in courtrooms.
Look at the trial of Darrell Brooks, the man that drove through a parade a few years ago. He was being very disruptive and, as a result, ended up spending a good chunk of the trial in a different room with a monitor and (often muted) camera.
Doesn’t the Sixth Amendment guarantee the accused the right to face their accuser?
I get using hoods and other things to protect others in the court if the defendant is a menace but he/she still has a fundamental right to be there (I think…correct me if I am wrong).
Yes, and that’s why I said that being present has been more liberally interpreted than it was in past times. They need to have access (hear, see) to the proceedings. It doesn’t mean they have to be in the same room.
I personally assisted in several trials where these methods were employed.
ETA: In cases where a defendant posed a danger to others in the courtroom, it was sufficient to just chain their limbs out of sight of the jury. But if they were verbally disruptive, then more extreme measures had to be taken. For judges, it’s a balancing act: Keep court staff/lawyers/law enforcement safe, against a defendant’s rights to be present and “face” their accuser.
Also, IIRC, there have been exceptions made for rape victims so they do not have to be in the same room with the person who raped them. I am not sure exactly how this is accommodated though and be in line with the sixth amendment.
In the 1972 Chicago Seven trial, Judge Julius Hoffman claimed that defendant Bobby Seale was being disruptive, and ordered that he be bound and gagged, and he remained so, in view of the jury, for several days. However the appeals court censured Judge Hoffman for his conduct during the trial.
This incident inspired Graham Nash’s song Chicago, which opens
So your brother’s bound and gagged And they’ve chained him to a chair Won’t you please come to Chicago just to sing?
Where I am, although the defendant is present in court, the witnesses may not be. Which I think slightly undermines the point of the exercise.
It started with just protected categories not having to face the defendant, but then COVID, and now a lot of the police witnesses just appear on video from the police station. This is for the magistrates court (small crimes). I don’t know what the situation is like in the county (state) court.
I’m not sure how this is normally handled, and it probably differs by state. I was a juror in a long rape trial here in Texas, about a year ago. The defendant was a repeat child rapist, whose victims were under the age of 10. IIRC, the victim was 8 years old and testified about what the defendant had done to her (in detail), and how long and how often it happened. The defendant was in court and seated with his legal team across from her. She couldn’t make herself look at him, and began sobbing when asked to point him out. They resorted to a picture of him on a screen, which was apparently acceptable to the defense. But the defendant stayed in his place the entire time, across from her.
Before the child testified, almost everyone was cleared from the courtroom. Only her parents, her doctor (psychiatrist, I think), and several policeman at the door to ensure no one entered.
Earlier, the prosecution walked us through his former crimes and convictions, then brought some of his former victims to testify about what he’d done to them (also in detail). One of a pair of sisters who he’d repeatedly raped* became more and more distraught, and told the court he was the reason her sister had committed suicide. At that point the defense objected and the judge intervened, stopping her testimony. She was crying by this point, and was helped off the stand and out of the courtroom. I don’t know whether the removal was mandated due to the outburst, or if it was just because her testimony was over.
We spent over 4 hours in deliberations, going over every piece of the defense’s rebuttals and statements, including getting copies of the court reporter’s records to be sure of everything. In the end, the evidence was too overwhelming and we agreed unanimously in the first vote (guilty on all but one charge). Then we went over it all again and re-voted, with the same result.
Next we had to decide on his sentencing, and that was more difficult than I thought it would be. We had a range of choices and had to stick to the law as best we could, rather than an emotional response.
That’s weird (from where I sit). Here, the jury would not hear about previous convictions.
Here, the judge does sentencing, and knows about previous convictions before sentencing. So I understand a jury hearing about previous convictions before sentencing.
And ‘tendency’ evidence would specifically be allowed if the accused was trying to present evidence that “I’m a good guy, I never do stuff like that”.
But not allowed in general, it has to have probative value, which is a bar most tendency evidence doesn’t meet.
