Blaine v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Blaine v. United States

136 F.2d 284, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3012

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1943

Docket8474

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 136 F.2d 284 (Blaine v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blaine v. United States, 136 F.2d 284, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3012 (D.C. Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried in the District Court and convicted of assault with the intent to commit rape. On this appeal the single assignment of error is that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because he was brought into the presence of the jury on the second day of the trial while handcuffed to a deputy marshal.

Appellant was on bail when the trial began and when his case was called came forward and took his seat with his counsel at the trial table. At the conclusion of the first day of the trial, and after the jury had been excused, his surety surrendered him and he was taken into custody. The following morning he was brought into the courtroom in the sight of the jury manacled to the marshal. After a few words from the Clerk the manacles were removed. Counsel claims that because this was done in the presence of the jury they must have believed that appellant had either attempted to escape or committed another offence and that such belief prejudiced his case and deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.

In a criminal trial the right of the accused to appear before the jury without manacles has always been acknowledged and ought not to be denied except where the character of the accused and the danger of escape or disorder make a different course necessary.

We cannot, however, find that what happened here was prejudicial. The shackles were immediately removed at the suggestion of the Clerk. The incident was momentary. It occurred before the judge ascended the bench and was not witnessed by him. Counsel for the accused, who had the opportunity to request the judge to explain the incident to the jury, did not consider it of sufficient importance to make such a request. To justify a new trial the error must appear to us to have seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceeding. We think it did not here.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried in the District Court and convicted of assault with the intent to commit rape. On this appeal the single assignment of error is that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because he was brought into the presence of the jury on the second day of the trial while handcuffed to a deputy marshal.

Appellant was on bail when the trial began and when his case was called came forward and took his seat with his counsel at the trial table. At the conclusion of the first day of the trial, and after the jury had been excused, his surety surrendered him and he was taken into custody. The following morning he was brought into the courtroom in the sight of the jury manacled to the marshal. After a few words from the Clerk the manacles were removed. Counsel claims that because this was done in the presence of the jury they must have believed that appellant had either attempted to escape or committed another offence and that such belief prejudiced his case and deprived him of a fair and impartial trial.

In a criminal trial the right of the accused to appear before the jury without manacles has always been acknowledged and ought not to be denied except where the character of the accused and the danger of escape or disorder make a different course necessary.

We cannot, however, find that what happened here was prejudicial. The shackles were immediately removed at the suggestion of the Clerk. The incident was momentary. It occurred before the judge ascended the bench and was not witnessed by him. Counsel for the accused, who had the opportunity to request the judge to explain the incident to the jury, did not consider it of sufficient importance to make such a request. To justify a new trial the error must appear to us to have seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceeding. We think it did not here.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F.2d 284, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 64, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaine-v-united-states-cadc-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack