PRISONERS AND PAROLEPRISONERS AND PAROLEPRISONERS AND PAROLEPRISONERS AND PAROLEPRISONERS AND PAROLE
(See also MEGAN’S LAW, PROBATION,
SENTENCING, SEX OFFENDERS,
VICTIMS, this Digest)
I. COURT APPEARANCES BY PRISONERS
A trial judge is given wide discretion in determining
proper security measures within the courtroom and is
obligated to protect the jury, counsel, witnesses and
members of public. State v. Zhu, 165 N.J. 544, 557
(2000); State v. Cook, 330 N.J. Super. 395, 415 (App.
Div. 2000), certif. denied 165 N.J. 486 (2000).
Security measures that are not inherently prejudicial
need not be justified by compelling evidence of
imminent threats to the security of the court. State v.
Zhu, 165 N.J. at 557. See, Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S.
560, 568-69 106 S.Ct. 1340, 1345-46, 89 L.Ed.2d 525,
534 (1986). However, a trial court cannot allow
unsupported or unreasonable assumptions concerning
the need for security to dictate implementation of
enhanced measures. Rather, trial courts must ensure that
the security measures they employ do not brand the
accused with the indicia of guilt contrary to
constitutional guarantees. State v. Zhu, 165 N.J. at 558.
Thus, although the County Sheriff is the presumed
expert in these matters and has primary responsibility to
provide for security, it is the non-delegable duty of the
trial court ultimately to approve such measures
consistent with constitutional protections to which all
defendants are entitled. State v. Zhu, 165 N.J. 544, 557
(2000).
The power to order a defendant to stand jury trial
while handcuffed or shackled calls for a meaningful
exercise of judicial discretion. Physical restraints may be
used only in exceptional circumstances. The information
upon which the judge acts need not necessarily come
from evidence formally offered and admitted at the trial.
His knowledge may stem from official records or what law
enforcement officers have told them. State v. Mance, 300
N.J. Super. 37, 50 (App.Div. 1997); State v. Damon, 286
N.J. Super. 492, 499 (App.Div. 1996); State v. Roberts,
86 N.J. Super. 159, 168 (App. Div. 1965). Such
information or knowledge should be placed on the record
before trial and out of the presence of the jury, and
defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to
meet that information. Id.
A trial judge should not require an accused to remain
handcuffed in the presence of the jury merely because
there was a shortage of courtroom security personnel.
Security measures should have been established which
would have permitted defendant to appear in the
presence of the jury without handcuffs. State v. Damon,
286 N.J.Super. 492, 497 (App. Div. 1996).When defendant continuously interrupts the trial
proceedings or where in the course of the trial there is
evident danger of defendant’s escape, or restraint is
necessary in order to protect others from an attack, the
trial judge may have defendant restrained on the spot,
without a hearing, because the conduct took place in the
presence of the court. State v. Roberts, 86 N.J.Super. 159,
168 (App. Div. 1965).The right to be free from handcuffs during trial does
not extend to being taken from the jail cell to the
courtroom even if inadvertently seen by the jury. State v.
Jones, 130 N.J. Super. 596 (Law Div. 1974).Defendant, previously convicted of multiple
murders in Pennsylvania, defending himself pro se with
two “co-counsel” assigned attorneys on capital murder,
was properly confined to counsel table because of security
concerns and was not permitted to leave counsel table to
approach a witness, walk around courtroom or approach
bench for sidebar conferences. State v. Cook, 330 N.J.
Super. 395 (App. Div.), certif. denied 165 N.J. 486
(2000).II. PRISONER’S CLOTHES AND APPEAR-
ANCE
Compelling defendant to wear prison clothes in front
of jury violates Fourteenth Amendment because it may
negatively affect judgment of jurors. Estelle v. Williams,
425 U.S. 501, 505, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 1693, 48 L.Ed.2d
126, 131 (1976).Defendants appearing for a jury trial in prison garb
should be personally questioned by the trial judge
concerning their desire to relinquish the right to appear
in civilian clothes and an explicit in-court waiver should
be obtained. State v. Maisonet, 166 N.J. 9, 18 (2001);
State v. Gertrude, 309 N.J. Super. 354, 357 (App. Div.
1998); State v. Carrion-Collazo, 221 N.J. Super. 103,
112-13 (App. Div. 1987), certif. den. 110 N.J. 171
(1988).Where defendant was deprived by the prison
authorities of all necessary amenities, such as food, clean