Mallory Maxwell*
Abstract
In the 2005 decision of Deck v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the routine shackling of criminal defendants in jury proceedings is unconstitutional. While in its opinion the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of (1) the presumption of innocence, (2) the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and (3) the dignity of the courtroom, as well as the adverse impact of juror biases, the Court did not address the constitutionality of routine shackling in nonjury proceedings. Thus, circuit courts are split on whether routinely shackling criminal defendants in nonjury proceedings is constitutional.
At the core of this circuit split are the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, particularly when shackled. The foundation of the U.S. criminal justice system is largely based upon the presumption of innocence of criminal defendants. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments uphold this presumption. However, presenting a shackled criminal defendant to a judge inherently challenges a defendant’s presumption of innocence. To remedy this, when deciding whether to shackle defendants in nonjury proceedings, courts should protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants by accounting for the biases of judges.
This Comment first addresses the importance and precedential value of the Supreme Court’s Deck opinion addressing shackling in jury proceedings. Next, this Comment discusses the current circuit split and Deck’s relevance to each of the three involved circuits. This Comment then examines the impact of bias on judicial decision-making and how shackles may provoke negative biases in both jurors and judges. This Comment, in part, recommends that courts hold routine shackling in nonjury proceedings unconstitutional. To account for judicial bias, this Comment ultimately recommends that courts determine whether to shackle criminal defendants based on an individualized, case-by-case determination.
*J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law, 2021. I would like to sincerely thank my parents, Judd and Pam, and my brother, Brock, for their unwavering support and encouragement as I pursue my legal passions. I would also like to thank my Penn State Law Review colleagues for their endless edits and guidance throughout the Comment writing process. I am eternally grateful to all my fellow PSLR members, friends, and family for believing in me every step of the way.
[FULL TEXT]
The Flagship Publication of Penn State Law