« More Comments About Raich | Main | Case of the Month: Batson post Miller-El & Johnson-- Williams v. Runnels »
Case of the Month: The 9th Circuit Unchained! US v. Howard
In United States v. Howard (Nov. 15, 2005), the 9th Circuit prohibited the practice of the Central District of California of shackling all defendants during arraignment in front of a magistrate judge. The court held the district-wide policy "effects a diminution of the liberty of pretrial detainees and distracts from the dignity and the decorum of a critical stage of a criminal prosecution." However, the court suggested that a properly justified policy of shackling may be upheld with "adequate justification of its necessity."
The court does an interesting analysis of shackling cases. While the typical concern in these cases is the prejudice that inheres when a defendant is shackled in front of the jury, Howard discusses the other concerns implicated when a defendant is shackled. The court cited Supreme Court precedent describing shackling as an "affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold." The court expressed concern that shackling interfered with communication between attorney and client, embarassed defendants, thereby impairing "mental faculties," and may cause a defendant physical and emotional pain.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding that if a restriction is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal "a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979). The Howard court concluded that "a pretrial detainee has a substantive due process right against restrictions that amount to punishment."
The court was unable to uphond the shackling policy on the record before it. While it invited the Central District to adopt a policy that adequately justified shackling, it seemed to caution that fiscal or budgetary concerns will not justify the polcy, noting that "the Supreme Court has already held that financial concerns should not be a justification for cutting back on the constitutional rights of criminal defendants."
Shackling is a hot area of law right now. Trial counsel must be sure to adequately preserve objections to shackling for appellate review.