Illinois v. Allen
397 U.S. 337 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant can lose their Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial by engaging in conduct so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful that the trial cannot proceed with them in the courtroom, provided the judge has first warned them of the consequences.
Facts:
- During his state trial for armed robbery, Allen chose to represent himself with a court-appointed lawyer on standby.
- During jury selection, Allen began to argue with the judge in an abusive and disrespectful manner.
- Allen threatened the trial judge, stating, 'When I go out for lunchtime, you’re [the judge] going to be a corpse here.'
- He then tore the case file his attorney was holding and threw the papers on the courtroom floor.
- The judge warned Allen that one more such outburst would result in his removal from the courtroom.
- Allen continued to be disruptive, proclaiming that there would be no trial, which led the judge to have him removed.
- After being allowed back into the courtroom on the condition he behave, Allen again began speaking out of turn and was removed a second time for the duration of the state's case-in-chief.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen was convicted of armed robbery by a jury in an Illinois state trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction on appeal.
- Allen then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court.
- The U.S. District Court, a federal court of first instance, denied the petition.
- Allen, as the appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that Allen's removal violated his absolute constitutional right to be present at trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does removing a persistently disruptive defendant from the courtroom, after a warning, violate his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to be present at his own trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
No. A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial is not absolute and can be forfeited by contumacious behavior. The Confrontation Clause does not give an accused person the right to disrupt and halt their own trial. A trial judge must be given sufficient discretion to manage the courtroom, and removing a disruptive defendant, after a warning, is a constitutionally permissible method for maintaining order. The right can be reclaimed as soon as the defendant agrees to conduct himself properly. The Court outlined three acceptable methods for dealing with such a defendant: (1) binding and gagging him, (2) citing him for contempt, or (3) removing him from the courtroom.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The government's prerogative to bring an accused person to trial cannot be defeated by the defendant's own misconduct. Allowing a defendant's disruptive actions to prevent a trial would be to let him profit from his own wrong and would create a travesty of justice. While removal is a permissible remedy, the trial court should make reasonable efforts to allow the excluded defendant to communicate with counsel and remain apprised of the trial's progress.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
While agreeing that a trial cannot proceed in bedlam, this case, due to its staleness and the defendant's potential mental illness, is a poor vehicle for establishing broad constitutional guidelines. The record is inadequate to resolve the complex issues that arise when a defendant's courtroom antics may not be volitional. The Court should not have reached the merits, but instead reversed the Court of Appeals on the grounds of the staleness of the record.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial. It clarifies that this fundamental right is not absolute and can be forfeited through egregious misconduct, preventing defendants from unilaterally halting judicial proceedings. By explicitly sanctioning removal as a remedy, the decision grants trial judges clear authority and discretion to maintain courtroom decorum and ensure the orderly administration of justice. This precedent balances the defendant's constitutional rights against the essential public interest in conducting and completing criminal trials.
Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. Allen