Bidding Farewell to the Ball and Chain: The United States Supreme Court Unconvincingly Prohibits Shackling in the Penalty Phase in Deck v. Missouri

No Thumbnail Available

Authors

Dickerson, Brandon

Issue Date

2006

Type

Journal Article

Language

Keywords

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Alternative Title

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|Several courts have ruled, as a matter of either state or federal constitutional law, an accused has a right to appear at trial free of visible shackles or other physical restraints. Courts and commentators typically frame their criticism of shackling at the guilt phase of a criminal trial as an affront to the presumption of innocence inherent in due process, since shackling is likely to have an effect on juror perceptions and prejudices. Courts that support a prohibition on guilt phase shackling also point to shackling's interference with a defendant's ability to aid in his own defense, as well as its negative effect on the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings. Until Deck v. Missouri, few courts and commentators had discussed shackling's effect on due process in the sentencing or "penalty phase" of a criminal trial, when the presumption of innocence no longer applies. |In Deck, Carman L. Deck ("Deck") appealed his death sentence, arguing his constitutional rights were violated when he appeared before the jury at the retrial of his penalty phase handcuffed to a belly chain. Prior to Deck, the closest the United States Supreme Court came to addressing the issue of shackling was to speak briefly of the practice in the dicta of three of its previous rulings. The Court in...

Description

Citation

39 Creighton L. Rev. 741 (2005-2006)

Publisher

Creighton University School of Law

License

Journal

Volume

Issue

PubMed ID

DOI

ISSN

EISSN