Can a Defendant/Convict Appear in Shackles During Sentencing?

Deck v. Missouri

Camaren Deck and his sister gained entrance to an elderly couple’s home by asking for directions. After robbing them, Deck considered for 10 minutes whether or not to kill them, ultimately deciding to do so. After being found guilty, Deck appeared before a jury during sentencing in shackles. The Court here decided that the appearance of a defendant in shackles during sentencing violates due process of the court.

It is unconstitutional for a defendant to be put in shackles during trial because it prejudices the jury, and implicitly violates the proviso that defendants are innocent at all times during their trial. However, during sentencing, the defendant is no longer innocent. In this case, the majority of the court found that for a number of reasons, a defendant appearing in shackles violates due process because it prejudices the jury as to the dangerousness of the defendant.

The dissent argues (citing vast amounts of precedent) that the common law supporting the majority’s opinion does not apply today, and that there is no national consensus as the majority argues. However, it seems that the majority only refers to common law to ascertain broad principles of objectivity during trial, rather than true precedent. The dissent also argues that there was sufficient cause to put the defendant in shackles, including the fact that he had participated in prison breaks before. The majority argued that while this may be true, the lower court did not address this issue in order to show cause, indicating that the decision was arbitrary. The dissent goes on to counter each argument that the majority makes as to prejudice, arguing that the proper balance should be in favor of courtroom security.

As compelling as the arguments for the majority are (I will not list them here), including the argument regarding prejudice, because the defendant is in fact guilty during sentencing, I would hope that jury could put aside any prejudice that shackles would convey. It may be necessary for a judge to intimate that to the jury, but the judgement here goes much further.