Deck's attorney said the high court has set those two standards for use of restraints during the part of the trial to determine guilt or innocence, but has yet to address whether they also applied to the penalty phase in a capital case.
My guess would be that the same standard would apply to the penalty phase of the trial. After there is a conviction the jury is able to hear any mitigating and aggravating factors that apply in the case. I would think that the being shackled would be a particularly damning aggravating factor imposed by the court.
As the public defender said,
Shackles and other restraints tacitly communicate to the jury that the court believes the defendant is still so dangerous that he must be restrained even in the confines of the courtroom
The State Supreme Court argued:
a trial judge has discretion to impose security measures, including the use of restraints, necessary to maintain courtroom order and security...[snip]...The state high court ruled that sufficient evidence in the record supported the use of restraints, such as the assumption that Deck, a repeat offender, was at risk to flee.
Perhaps the court should up it's security if it really believes defendants are going to be able to run out of the courthouse and get away unless they are shackled.
I do find it interesting that the Supreme Court, in the past few terms, has a renewed interest in death penalty cases. I don't believe the D.P. will be held unconstitutional any time soon, but I do see that the court is willing to provide more rights to defendants.
