People v. Duran
16 Cal. 3d 282, 545 P.2d 1322, 127 Cal. Rptr. 618 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints in the courtroom in the presence of the jury unless the trial court makes a specific, on-the-record finding of a manifest need for such restraints based on the defendant's individual conduct.
Facts:
- During a laundry exchange in the plaza of the California Men's Colony, inmate Sprague was stabbed and fell to his knees.
- A guard in an observation tower saw inmate Bernardo Guiterrez Duran running from the scene and ordered another guard to apprehend him.
- Duran was apprehended after he tripped while attempting to flee through a doorway.
- A single scissor blade was found approximately three feet from where Duran fell.
- Sprague, the victim, testified that he was certain Duran was not his assailant.
- Another inmate, Gallegos, testified that he saw Duran swing his arm several times in Sprague's direction just before Sprague fell, but did not see a weapon.
- No identifiable fingerprints were found on the scissor blade, and the blood on it could not be identified by type.
- Duran testified that he fled the scene to avoid being connected with the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernardo Guiterrez Duran was charged with assault with a deadly weapon by a life-term prisoner and possession of a dirk or dagger.
- Prior to trial in the superior court, defense counsel made a motion for Duran to appear before the jury in civilian clothes and without restraints.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Duran on both counts.
- Duran appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a trial court's summary denial of a defendant's motion to appear before the jury without physical restraints, absent a showing of manifest need on the record, constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, C. J.
Yes. The trial court's summary denial of the motion to appear without restraints constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion because a defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints unless there is a showing of manifest need on the record. The court reaffirmed the common law rule from People v. Harrington, holding that shackling prejudices the defendant by suggesting to the jury that he is a violent person, affronts human dignity, and can impair the defendant's ability to participate in his own defense. A trial court cannot adopt a general policy of shackling inmates but must make a case-by-case determination based on evidence of nonconforming conduct, such as threats of violence or plans to escape. Because there was no such evidence on the record here, the shackling was an abuse of discretion. This error, combined with the court's errors in limiting cross-examination of a key witness and excluding evidence explaining Duran's flight, was prejudicial and requires reversal of the conviction.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
No. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to remove defendant’s restraints because the judge is in the best position to assess courtroom security. The dissent argues that the threat to courtroom security was demonstrated by Duran's prior robbery conviction, the violent nature of the current charges, and the presence of numerous other inmate witnesses. Furthermore, any potential error was harmless because the jury already knew Duran was a prison inmate, so the shackles did not introduce new prejudicial information. The dissent contends that the other alleged evidentiary errors were also harmless and that the judgment should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens the rule against the routine shackling of criminal defendants. It shifts the burden to the court to justify the use of restraints by requiring an on-the-record showing of 'manifest need,' thereby rejecting a standard that gave trial judges nearly unlimited discretion. By disapproving of lower court cases that presumed the trial court's judgment was correct, the ruling establishes a mandatory procedural safeguard to protect the presumption of innocence. This precedent ensures that physical restraints are a measure of last resort, used only in specific, documented circumstances, rather than as a general policy for certain classes of defendants like prison inmates.
