Appeals Court Holds Restraints Need To Be Justified Before Verdict, Not After

06/19/12

On Friday, a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a burglary conviction because the prosecution delayed its justification for retraining the defendant and using a stun belt and shackles until the verdict was given. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department ordered a new trial for Jessie Barnes, 46, found guilty of two residential burglaries.

Barnes is serving 82 years in prison. However, the court found that in Barnes' trial, justification of putting him in shackles and a stun belt was provided by the prosecution only after and not before the conviction and sentencing. Under the ruling in People v. Buchanan, 2009, by the New York Court of Appeals, trial courts need to record the findings of fact before requiring restraints like stun belts. Stun belts and shackles are typically used on people who are found to pose security threats. However, such records were not maintained in the instant case.

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

While the lower court provided a reasonable explanation for the restraints put on the defendant after the defendant challenged their use in a post-trial motion, the Fourth Department panel held “the court's post hoc explanation does not suffice inasmuch as the court was required to have considered the relevant factors and made a sufficient inquiry before making a finding that restraints were necessary.” Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo has asked his office to review the case and determine whether to challenge the ruling before the New York Court of Appeals. The attorney representing Barnes was not available for comment.

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

In People v. Buchanan, on a similar issue, though the court did not find the lower court's determination to require the defendant to wear a stun belt as violating his rights to due process, nevertheless, the New York Appeals Court held that, “We conclude that the use of any type of physical restraint requires the court to make the same individualized security determination required for the use of physical restraints that are visible (see Deck v Missouri, 544 US 622, 632 [2005]).”

Again in People v. Buchanan, the ruling on which the Appellate Division, Fourth Department relied its order, the New York Appeals Court had said, “We reject the contention of defendant that reversal of the judgment is required on the ground that the court failed to articulate a justifiable basis for requiring him to wear the stun belt (see generally People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]). Because we conclude that the court must make individualized security determinations, whether the physical restraints are visible or not, we note that it is well established that, "where a court, without adequate justification, orders the defendant to wear shackles that will be seen by the jury, the defendant need not demonstrate actual prejudice to make out a due process violation" (Deck, 544 US at 635).”

The case is People v. Barnes, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, No. 10-1241.