Handcuffing a Defendant for the Reading of the Jury’s Verdict Requires New Trial

Due Process and the Fourteenth Amendment

People v. Sanders, 39 N.Y.3d 216 (2023)

New York Court of Appeals

Criminal Appeals Lawyer in New York

Appealing a Felony Conviction in New York

Legal Issue

In People v Sanders, the central legal issue revolves around the constitutional due process prohibition against the use of visible shackles during the guilt phase of a trial without a special need. ​ Specifically, the case examines whether the trial judge violated this prohibition by ordering the defendant to be handcuffed during the jury’s reading of its verdict and the court’s polling of the jurors without providing an on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. ​

Facts of the Case

Oscar Sanders was tried before a jury on multiple charges, including one count of attempted assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree. ​ Additionally, Sanders faced three counts of criminal contempt due to violations of an order of protection. ​ After the jury reached a verdict, defense counsel observed Sanders in handcuffs and objected, arguing that the sight of the defendant in handcuffs could negatively influence jurors during the polling process. ​ The trial judge denied the objection and proceeded with the reading of the verdict, which found Sanders guilty on several counts. Sanders was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years to life imprisonment. ​

Court’s Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the trial judge committed a constitutional error by ordering Sanders to be handcuffed without providing an individualized explanation for the restraints on the record. ​ The court emphasized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from physically restraining a defendant during a criminal trial without an on-the-record, individualized assessment of the state interest specific to the particular trial. ​ The court found that this error was not harmless and required reversal of Sanders’ conviction and a new trial. ​

Applicable Law

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the use of physical restraints on a defendant during a criminal trial without an individualized assessment of the need for such restraints. ​ This principle was established in Deck v Missouri, where the Supreme Court held that visible shackles during the guilt phase of a trial are forbidden unless there is a special need. ​ The New York Court of Appeals applied this principle in People v Clyde, reinforcing the requirement for close judicial scrutiny before ordering a defendant restrained. ​

Key Terms for Better Understanding

  • Constitutional Due Process: Legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights owed to a person.
  • Visible Shackles: Physical restraints that are visible to the jury during a trial. ​
  • Guilt Phase: The part of a trial where the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty of the charges. ​
  • Special Need: A specific, individualized reason for restraining a defendant during a trial. ​
  • Fourteenth Amendment: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes the Due Process Clause, protecting individuals from state actions that violate their rights. ​
  • Attempted Assault in the First Degree: A charge involving an attempt to cause serious physical injury to another person. ​
  • Assault in the Second Degree: A charge involving causing physical injury to another person. ​
  • Criminal Contempt: A charge involving disobedience or disrespect towards a court order. ​
  • Order of Protection: A legal order issued by a court to protect a person from harm or harassment.
  • Polling of Jurors: The process of asking each juror individually to confirm their agreement with the verdict. ​
  • Harmless Error: A legal doctrine that refers to a mistake made by the trial court that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties involved.

Article 78 Lawyer in New York

Conclusion

The People v Sanders case underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional protections during criminal trials. ​ The Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse Sanders’ conviction and order a new trial highlights the necessity for trial judges to provide individualized explanations for the use of physical restraints on defendants. ​ This case serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of due process and the protection of defendants’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. ​