Court Rules Against Shackling Defendants

By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer May 23, 2005, 4:51 PM EDT WASHINGTON

It is unconstitutional to force capital murder defendants to appear before juries in shackles during the penalty phase of trial, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, brushing aside warnings by two justices about courthouse safety. In a 7-2 decision, the high court threw out the death sentence of Carman Deck, a convicted murderer who was shackled in leg irons and handcuffed to a chain around his belly when he faced a Missouri jury that considered his fate. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said shackling almost always implies that authorities consider the offender a danger to the community, a factor juries weigh in considering a sentence. "Although the jury is no longer deciding between guilt and innocence, it is deciding between life and death," he wrote. Breyer brushed aside a strongly worded dissent by the court's most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who warned the decision risks the lives of courtroom personnel. "The court's holding defies common sense and all but ignores the serious security issues facing our courts," Thomas said in dissent. The decision follows a highly publicized case in March where an Atlanta rape defendant overpowered a deputy, stole her gun and killed the presiding judge and three others before he was apprehended. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office argued in favor of shackling, said visibly restraining a convicted murderer is reasonable because it errs on the side of public safety. "I think you're slicing it pretty thin when you're dealing with the penalty phase of a capital murder," Nixon said. "Everybody on that jury knows that this person has already been convicted of first degree murder. They are, by their very nature, dangerous." Deck's attorney, Rosemary Percival, said the court's opinion showed common sense in dealing with security. "It balances the need for courtroom security with the interests of the defendant in receiving a fair sentencing trial," said Deck, a public defender in Kansas City. The high court had already held that people on trial could be shackled only if prosecutors had a strong argument for it. Monday's decision extends that rationale to sentencing hearings in capital murder cases. The majority decision noted that restraints outside the jury's sight are available, and left room for court personnel to visibly handcuff or chain defendants only if they pose a special security risk. Deck was convicted of killing James Long, 69, and his wife, Zelma, 67, near De Soto, Mo., in 1996. He went to the elderly couple's door asking for directions, but once inside shot them both twice in the head and stole about $400. Deck will now receive a new sentencing hearing before another jury. In his dissent, Thomas cited studies showing that judges, sheriffs and courtroom baliffs all face an unusually high risk of being assaulted in the workplace. Security issues are especially acute in state systems with limited resources, Thomas wrote in an opinion joined by Scalia. "The need for security is real. Judges face the possibility that a defendant or his confederates might smuggle a weapon into court and harm those present, or attack with his bare hands,"Thomas said.

The case is Deck v. Missouri, 04-5293.