No hand cuffs or restraints

[catellis]

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma.
My ex husband is in jail for first degree murder. He is still awaiting trial. I have been to all of his court hearings, etc. and when they bring him into the courtroom they never have him in hand cuffs or any kind of restraints at all. They have a deputy watching him but he is not armed. They just allow him to move around freely. How common is this? I have talked to the sheriff of this county and he said the deputy is keeping an eye on him. Does this happen anywhere else? And why would they allow this?

[CalifAtty-11]

Originally Posted by catellis

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma.
My ex husband is in jail for first degree murder. He is still awaiting trial. I have been to all of his court hearings, etc. and when they bring him into the courtroom they never have him in hand cuffs or any kind of restraints at all. They have a deputy watching him but he is not armed. They just allow him to move around freely. How common is this? I have talked to the sheriff of this county and he said the deputy is keeping an eye on him. Does this happen anywhere else? And why would they allow this?

My response:

. . . and you care, because?

IAAL

[catellis]

I care because ......he shot and killed my brother in law. He is mentally unstable and I am no longer attending his court dates due to the fact that he's not kept in restraints. He is the father of my 9 year old daughter and I want to know that she's safe and that he's not going to escape from a small town jail and kill the rest of us.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by catellis

And why would they allow this?

See Supreme Court ruling requiring that prisoners not be in handcuffs or restraints in courtroom as it restricts the prisoners right to blow kisses at jury.... or to put fingers in their ears and 'waggle' them.

[HappyHusband]

Originally Posted by JETX

See Supreme Court ruling requiring that prisoners not be in handcuffs or restraints in courtroom as it restricts the prisoners right to blow kisses at jury.... or to put fingers in their ears and 'waggle' them.

Or in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would have prevented him from making the "finger-lickin good" gesture.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by catellis

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma.
My ex husband is in jail for first degree murder. He is still awaiting trial. I have been to all of his court hearings, etc. and when they bring him into the courtroom they never have him in hand cuffs or any kind of restraints at all. They have a deputy watching him but he is not armed. They just allow him to move around freely. How common is this? I have talked to the sheriff of this county and he said the deputy is keeping an eye on him. Does this happen anywhere else? And why would they allow this?

It may depend on the state and on issues brought up by defense counsel.

If this were at trial, I would expect that the defendant would also be dressed in "street" clothes or a business suit so as not to look like a prisoner. If these are preliminary motions and he is in a prisoners' jumper anyway, I see no reason why he should not be in shackles and belly irons.

But, each county is free to do what they wish. And until one of these inmates runs amok and kills someone (or tries to) the policy won't change. And a deputy watching a prisoner is pointless as the deputy is far mnore likely to be distracted while the prisoner - if he has a plan of attack or escape - will be the first to act when HE thinks he has the advantage.

- Carl

[garrula lingua]

Are you sure they're not using a belly stun belt ?
(Don't laugh. Riverside County was using that & a bailiff mistakenly leaned against the trigger and was unwittenly stunning the prisoner.)

I agree with you. I don't know what's wrong with that Sheriff and that Judge.
I wouldn't want to be standing in that courtroom. You don't have too much to lose when you're in for murder, esp if the evidence is strong.

Ask the court clerk about this. The Judge can order shackles in his/her court.

[justalayman]

[quote=garrula lingua]Are you sure they're not using a belly stun belt ?
(Don't laugh. Riverside County was using that & a bailiff mistakenly leaned against the trigger and was unwittenly stunning the prisoner.)
QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I couldn't keep from laughing. The thought of this is hilarious.

are they sure it was accidental???

[CdwJava]

Here it is 2006 and my county's courts only JUST (like, a month ago) got in X-ray screening devices for bags, and a metal detector for those entering the courthouses! Prior to this you could have brought a bazooka into the courtrooms or any office in the building!! Knives were a common sight.

We were fortunate that nothing has happened in our courts for many, many years. And while the prisoners are always in chains, the peanut gallery could contain friends and associates armed to the hilt. Thankfully, this has changed.

Oh, and we also have the stun belt ... they haven't used it yet because of incidents like Riverside, but they have it as an option should they ever develop the political will or the need to attach it to a prisoner.

Sadly, too many courts - even in CA - are vulnerable to events like that in Atlanta a few months back. It is by the grace of God - and the vigilance of the few officers in these courtrooms - that greater tragedies have not occurred.

- Carl

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And until one of these inmates runs amok and kills someone (or tries to) the policy won't change. And a deputy watching a prisoner is pointless as the deputy is far mnore likely to be distracted while the prisoner - if he has a plan of attack or escape - will be the first to act when HE thinks he has the advantage.

Not too long ago:
[url]http://www.wnbc.com/news/6254678/detail.html[/url]

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Not too long ago:
[url]http://www.wnbc.com/news/6254678/detail.html[/url]

Yep!

The defendents had a plan, and they tried to execute it.

Scary stuff.

And I loved the statement, "The defendants were not handcuffed at the time of the attack because they cannot be seen like that by a jury" ... lovely!

- Carl

[catellis]

Yeah and I don't get why they allow the prisoners to wear street clothes during their trial and be unrestrained. I know it's so they don't "look" like a prisoner. But come on....everyone knows why they're there. Everyone knows they are a prisoner. That's crazy. But seriously, in Benton County Arkansas I saw a guy taken into court for not paying child support and he was in his prison clothes AND he was cuffed and shackled everywhere. Now my ex is in jail for murder and he can move around freely. I am seriously afraid of him because he has threatened my life many times. I know he's mentally ill and that makes him even scarier. I just don't understand the logic behind not restraining him. They bring him in in his prison clothes but they take the restraints off first. I am just in shock that's this is really happening.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by catellis

Yeah and I don't get why they allow the prisoners to wear street clothes during their trial and be unrestrained. I know it's so they don't "look" like a prisoner.

I can go along with the plain clothes part, but belly chains or handcuffs and shackles (aka 'leg irons') could work - they wouldn't be visible beneath the defense table.

The "stun belt" is a good addition as well. Too bad that the odd bad press incident removes a potentially life-saving measure from the toolbox.

I have seen courts where the defendant in a jury trial is not allowed to be shackled and chained, is not allowed to be fitted with a "stun belt", and instead has two to four deputies hovering right behin his chair during each appearance ... that would seem to run counter to what the defense might hope for in making their client look innocent. Having four deputies stand behind a prisoner would make him look even more menacing than he might otherwise appear if merely in chains and cuffs!

I just don't understand the logic behind not restraining him. They bring him in in his prison clothes but they take the restraints off first. I am just in shock that's this is really happening.

Speak to the prosecutor's office about the matter. There may be nothing you CAN do as it might be a court policy (for the entire court or for that judge) or even built into the law. I'm guessing that it is policy, and as such it is able to be changed. But, without impetus, most courts and law enforcement agencies aren't going to change without a push. So don't hold your breath waiting for a change to occur. But, you never know - it could be that a call from the prosecutor is all that is needed.

- Carl

[Kane]

FWIW, I think this more about a desire to see him punished before he's convicted, than it is about safety. Unless he's a ninja or something, the chances of him doing anything are pretty remote. You're safer in the courthouse, than you were driving there.

Those metal detectors are pretty lame, too. They'd be better off assigning those deputies to the individual courts, than having them stand around those machines all day. If you were serious about bringing something in, it wouldn't be that hard to get past them.

Plus, if you wanted to take out a bunch of people all at once, those long lines that form in front of the machines every morning would be the perfect place. Or, you could just bring your guns to the movie theater, or the mall.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Kane

FWIW, I think this more about a desire to see him punished before he's convicted, than it is about safety.

Of course.

Just like when people call the about some nebulous incident and ask why we didn't make an arrest. Most people want SOMETHING done and don't like the idea of not seeing some obvious penalty for the alleged transgression.

Those metal detectors are pretty lame, too. They'd be better off assigning those deputies to the individual courts, than having them stand around those machines all day. If you were serious about bringing something in, it wouldn't be that hard to get past them.

I suppose it depends where you work. And this security varies greatly by bounty and by court. I have worked where security officers man these devices, and in places where they are staffed by deputies. I have seen many people waved through with a yawn even when the alarm goes off, and I have seen others where even the attorneys are required to empty their pockets.

Plus, if you wanted to take out a bunch of people all at once, those long lines that form in front of the machines every morning would be the perfect place. Or, you could just bring your guns to the movie theater, or the mall.

Well, it's at the courts (particularly family courts) where all the emotional parties end up. Peopel tend to get really pissed at the judge or the other party in a civil or family court action, and we tend to see these as the greatest source of potential courtroom violence. Unless you have Sonny Barger or some Columbian cartel kingpin on trial, the chance of a serious outside-assisted break from custody at the court is not too likely. But it IS possible.

In CA it has been outside the courts where a lot of the assaults have taken place.

As a note, there are few places I go where I feel it is absolutely necessary I be armed when off duty. But, whenever I go to court anywhere I ALWAYS bring my weapon ... it is that much of a concern.

- Carl