Due Process: Stunning Decision
New York State Court of Appeals: People v. Buchanan
It was Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist who first said “the law is an ass” after he was told “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.” His point was plain: reality and the law frequently don’t see eye to eye.
There are times when courts make rulings based on constitutional law, state law or even some ethereal philosophy that causes us to raise an eyebrow rather than see the point. Perhaps this is such a case.
As the dissent describes him, defendant Ingvue Buchanan was “a man in his thirties who apparently stands more than 6 feet tall and weighs over 300 pounds.” Defendant was accused of murdering a 14-year-old girl by strangling her. He was tried before a jury and convicted of second degree murder (the highest count chargeable in New York State).
Buchanan appealed and the case made its way to New York’s highest court. The basis for the appeal: the trial judge made Mr. Buchanan wear a stun belt during trial. It is a form of electrical restraint that “can deliver a shock should there be a problem.” The stun belt was worn beneath defendant’s clothes, and unlike shackles, could not be seen by the jury.
At trial, the judge told defendant Buchanan he was requiring him to wear the device as a matter of policy because of the seriousness of the charges against him. Defendant personally objected, telling the court “I have done nothing to warrant this." While the trial judge did not disagree with defendant, he still required him to wear the belt “in the interest of being overly cautious for security.” Seemingly not unreasonable given defendant’s size and the charges against him.
After a day of trial, Buchanan complained that the device was “uncomfortable.” So the court had it examined. Then the next day, out of an abundance of caution and judicial sensitivity, the judge obtained a report confirming that there was no medical reason that would prevent Buchanan from wearing the belt. And so he wore it through the duration of the trial and the guilty verdict rendered, with no shock ever having been administered, except, perhaps, to the parents of the murdered 14 year old.
Anyway, defendant argued that the stun belt “deprived him of due process of law” under both the US Constitution and state law because the US Supreme Court has held that “the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from confining a defendant in ‘visible shackles’ during a criminal trial, unless a ‘special need,’ based on facts specific to the case is shown.” The prosecutors argued that unlike shackles which can be seen, no one saw the stun belt and no jurors knew about it, so there could be no violation of defendant’s rights.
In its infinite wisdom, New York’s highest court concluded that it need not reach the constitutional issue since “as a matter of New York law...it is unacceptable to make a stun belt a routine adjunct of every murder trial, without a specifically identified security reason.” Since the stun belt was a matter of the trial judge’s “policy,” and not a stated finding with respect to this defendant’s need for potential restraints, a new trial was ordered.
Simply put, a 6 foot 300 pound man accused of strangling a 14-year-old girl had his conviction overturned because he had to wear a hidden restraining device that was never activated and never administered a shock.
It’s hard to know how to process this decision, but some perspective is warranted: Is wearing the device so offensive—like making a man wear women’s underwear—that it’s even more offensive than a 300 pound man strangling a 14-year-old child, as the jury concluded? Does such an insult to Mr. Buchanan’s sensitivities warrant having his conviction reversed? Does due process under state law guarantee a defendant the right to be free from any inconvenience or precaution beyond confinement? Or are our sensibilities so exaggerated in these politically correct times that defendant’s offendedness from being made to wear the device actually outweighs the offense of murder?
As the lone dissent put it: “Defendant failed to show that the stun belt was visible to the jury or otherwise compromised the fundamental fairness of the trial; he never objected that the stun belt impaired his ability to communicate with his attorney or meaningfully participate in his defense. Since I therefore do not believe that defendant has shown any actual prejudice, I would affirm his conviction.”
So would most people. But the law is what the law is.
Comments
Having worked on this appeal, I would note that this was a 6-1 decision in favor of reversal. Your comment, "So would most people," referring to the dissenter's opinion that the judgment should have been affirmed, ignores the 6-1 count. I would note, also, that there was a 3-2 split in the Appellate Division. Counting those judges, 8 voted to reverse and 4 to affirm.
The argument in the Court of Appeals focused on two things: cognitive impairment and due process. Your post constantly refers to the nature of the offense and the defendant's size. So, in other words, strap a stun-belt on any one who is over weight and charged (not convicted) of a serious offense. The presumtion of innocence means nothing, right? That the belt was never activated means nothing. Can we strap a bomb to a defendant as long we don't detonate it? Or perhaps hold a loaded gun to his head?
People who disagree with this decision miss the big picture and let the trees obscure their view of the forest. This is not about Ingvue Buchanan. It is about any man charged with a crime, the presumption of innocence that our Constitution promises, and the right to participate in one's defense without cognitive impairment.
The county court's policy that a defendant wear a stunbelt has no place in our system of justice. The Sheriff's Department is well-equipped to deal with even 6 foot tall 300 pound men. They have no genuine need to use their new toy on presumptively innocent defendants.
Your argument that the belt was never activated ignores statistics demonstrating a significant number of accidental activations. It also ignores the converse argument: the defendant did nothing pre or post trial to warrant the use of the stunbelt.
If handcuffs, secure buildings, and armed guards can't control a defendant, the Sheriff should find a different line of work. Maybe China or Iran could benefit from his expertise.
Posted by: Kevin Muscoreil | July 27, 2009 1:56 PM
I totally agree with the first comment. This is about principles rather than the specifics of the case.I speak from first hand experience as an advocate currently fighting to uphold the principles of due process in a shocking case.
I am currently proceeding with an appeal concerning the rape, battery and near killing of woman left permanently disabled from her injuries.
Barbara Bracci, a hard-working New York State corrections officer claimed she was brutally attacked by her work supervisor, Captain William E. Peek. Bracci had made tape recordings she alleged were of her remorseful attacker confessing to his crimes. The NY State Dept. of Corrections (DOC) took the tapes from her.
The case went to the Division of Human Rights(SDHR). Bracci wanted her original tapes played in open court. DOC refused to give the tapes back to her and gave them, instead, to the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) who refused to let the court hear them.
Instead the ALJ weighed the tapes in secret, ex parte, in camera and ruled them to be unreliable. Thereafter the case was dismissed. Bracci protested that her due process rights were denied and she was granted an Article 78 special proceeding.
The case went before the Appellate Division, Third Dept. SDHR gave no verified answer in response to Bracci’s charges and the tapes were now somehow 'lost.' So with no verified averments of denial and no tapes Bracci duly filed for summary judgment.
However, the Appellate justices bizarrely dismissed the claim on May, 14, 2009 upholding the lower court’s judgment. Nowhere in the Appellate decision does the term, ‘Article 78’ even appear.
Thus the higher court had not only condoned the weighing of evidence in secret, it unlawfully took away Bracci's status as an Article 78 litigant.
Even a layperson looking at the court’s website under ‘Bracci-v-State Division of Human Rights’ (Case no: 506150) can see that this raped and abused woman was cheated of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/506150.pdf
Now we shall see if the Court of Appeals will be as fair and just on Bracci as they were in the above case. Courts must be compelled to respect every citizen's constitutional rights to a fair hearing.
Posted by: John O'Sullivan | July 30, 2009 6:42 AM