Handcuff the Presumption of Innocence: People v. Sanders скачать в хорошем качестве

Handcuff the Presumption of Innocence: People v. Sanders

In this video, we'll discuss the criminal case of People v. Sanders, which addresses the presumption of innocence implications of handcuffs on a defendant during verdict. Handcuffing a defendant during verdict has a profound impact on the verdict that is rendered. New York's highest Court suggests that by handcuffing the defendant, the jury no longer has the presumption of innocence and is instead made to view the defendant as a criminal. This shifts the focus of the trial away from the facts of the case and towards the defendant, which can have a significant impact on the verdict. We'll be discussing this case and its implications in detail in this video. So be sure to watch it to learn everything you need to know about handcuffing a defendant during verdict. Issue: Can a defendant be visibly handcuffed during verdict and polling of jury without harming presumption of innocence? Case Name: People v. Sanders Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op. 00692 (https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dserie...) Oral Argument Link:    • No. 9 People v Oscar Sanders   Publication Date: 02/09/23 Case Type: Criminal Key parts of the Decision: Overall Issue - Under what circumstances can a defendant be visibly handcuffed in front of a jury during the announcement of the verdict or the polling of the jury? Overall Holding - "The "long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a trial" in the absence "of a special need" (Deck v Missouri, 544 US 622, 626 [2005]) applies during the jury's reading of its verdict and the court's polling of the jurors. Here, the trial judge violated this constitutional due process prohibition by ordering defendant to be handcuffed when the jury returned to announce its verdict without providing an on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. Because this error was not harmless, it requires reversal of defendant's conviction and a new trial." "It is undisputed that no such scrutiny occurred here and therefore the trial judge committed a constitutional error by ordering defendant handcuffed without placing the special need for such restraints on the record (Deck, 544 US at 628-629; Clyde, 18 NY3d at 152-153)." Sub-Issue #1 raised - When, generally, can a defendant be restrained in court during a criminal trial? Sub-Issue #1 answered - "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from physically restraining a defendant during a criminal trial without an on-the-record, individualized assessment of the "state interest specific to a particular trial" (Deck, 544 US at 628-629, 632; see also People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 153 [2011]). A trial court therefore has a constitutional obligation to conduct "close judicial scrutiny" before ordering a defendant restrained."[Internal quotations and citations omitted] Sub-Issue #2 raised - Does the general rule about restraining the defendant still apply during the verdict phase and why? Sub-Issue #2 answered - "The prosecution's claim that the constitutional prohibition articulated in Deck does not apply during the reading of the jury verdict and polling of individual jurors is meritless. First, Deck involved the application of the constitutional prohibition against restraint during the punishment phase of a capital case, which necessarily occurred after the guilty verdict had been entered. Second, the reading of the verdict is an integral part of the guilt-determination phase. As the Court explained in People v Salemmo, citing to CPL 310.80, "a verdict reported by the jury is not final unless properly recorded and accepted by the court". Indeed, in accordance with CPL 310.80, the trial court must order the jury to resume deliberations when polling elicits a negative answer from one or more jurors. As a consequence, until the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and, if polled, confirms the verdict, there is no finding of guilt, defendant is still presumed innocent, and the constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in full force." [Internal quotations and citations omitted] Sub-Issue #3 raised - If the Judge fails to comply with the required standard, is this harmless error? Sub-Issue #3 answered - "Under the applicable harmless error standard, we cannot say that this constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The error here requires reversal of defendant's conviction and a new trial." [Internal quotations and citations omitted] #handcuff #PresumptionOfInnocence #NYCourtOfAppeals #shackles #JuryVerdict #ReversibleError #FairTrial #Criminal #CriminalDefense