In this case, the criminal defendant in state court was removed from the courtroom while the jury was issuing its verdict because the trial court decided that a prior warning was not practicable. This is the rare case where the conviction is affirmed even though the defendant was not present in the courtroom during all proceedings.
The case is People v. Dunton, issued by the New York Court of Appeals on April. The defendant, standing trial in a shooting case, had a violent record while in custody at Riker's Island, requiring the court take additional security precautions during trial. As the majority states in this case, the defendant had known "explosive tendencies." During trial, the prosecution told the court that one of its witnesses complained that defendant had stared her down while she was testifying against him, signaling that she should keep her mouth shut.
When the jury began reading its verdict in court, after finding him guilty on the sixth count, and with one count to go, defendant yelled at the jury in open court and told them to "suck my d***." The judge then removed defendant from the courtroom and the jury proceeded to find him guilty on the seventh charge.
While criminal convictions can be overturned for a new trial when the defendant is improperly removed from the courtroom during all proceedings, there are exceptions to that rule, and this case creates an exception. The Court of Appeals holds that removal was proper in the unique circumstances of this case. The majority reasons:
In disregard of his professed assurances, and demonstrating his
contempt for the proceedings and the court, defendant disrupted the
announcement of the verdict three times. First, he laughed after the foreperson
announced guilty on five counts, including the top count of attempted murder.
Second, moments later, after the foreperson announced guilty on the sixth
count, defendant directed a verbal outburst at the jury. Third, after the court
instructed counsel to control defendant, defendant continued his tirade, using
profanity directed specifically at the jury. It was only after defendant could
not be controlled and the jurors had become visibly upset by defendant's verbal
abuse that the court directed the officers to take charge and defendant was
removed from the courtroom.
Contrary to the
dissent's view, the totality of defendant's misconduct in and out of the
courthouse rendered a warning to defendant immediately preceding his removal
impracticable. Any delay in defendant's removal would have permitted further
disruption of the proceedings and risked physical danger to the public, jurors,
judge, court officers and staff and the lawyers. As the court had earlier
observed, “things get ugly very fast in a [quite small] courtroom.” The fact
that defendant was handcuffed did not eliminate the possibility that he could
physically move about and further disrupt the proceedings and injure those in
attendance. Indeed, defendant had previously displayed violent sudden outbursts
and there was no certainty that handcuffs would prevent him from reacting in
the same manner.
In disregard of his professed
assurances, and demonstrating his contempt for the proceedings and the
court, defendant disrupted the announcement of the verdict three times.
First, he laughed after the foreperson announced guilty on five counts,
including the top count of attempted murder.5
Second, moments later, after the foreperson announced guilty on the
sixth count, defendant directed a verbal outburst at the jury. Third,
after the court instructed counsel to control defendant, defendant
continued his tirade, using profanity directed specifically at the jury.
It was only after defendant could not be controlled and the jurors had
become visibly upset by defendant's verbal abuse that the court directed
the officers to take charge and defendant was removed from the
courtroom.6
Contrary
to the dissent's view, the totality of defendant's misconduct in and
out of the courthouse rendered a warning to defendant immediately
preceding his removal impracticable (see dissenting op. at
––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d at ––––, ––– N.E.3d at ––––). Any delay in
defendant's removal would have permitted further disruption of the
proceedings and risked physical danger to the public, jurors, judge,
court officers and staff and the lawyers. As the court had earlier
observed, “things get ugly very fast in a [quite small] courtroom.” The
fact that defendant was handcuffed did not eliminate the possibility
that he could physically move about and further disrupt the proceedings
and injure those in attendance. Indeed, defendant had previously
displayed violent sudden outbursts and there was no certainty that
handcuffs would prevent him from reacting in the same manner.
People v. Dunton, No. 42, 2024 WL 1723124, at *5 (N.Y. Apr. 23, 2024)
In disregard of his professed
assurances, and demonstrating his contempt for the proceedings and the
court, defendant disrupted the announcement of the verdict three times.
First, he laughed after the foreperson announced guilty on five counts,
including the top count of attempted murder.5
Second, moments later, after the foreperson announced guilty on the
sixth count, defendant directed a verbal outburst at the jury. Third,
after the court instructed counsel to control defendant, defendant
continued his tirade, using profanity directed specifically at the jury.
It was only after defendant could not be controlled and the jurors had
become visibly upset by defendant's verbal abuse that the court directed
the officers to take charge and defendant was removed from the
courtroom.6
Contrary
to the dissent's view, the totality of defendant's misconduct in and
out of the courthouse rendered a warning to defendant immediately
preceding his removal impracticable (see dissenting op. at
––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d at ––––, ––– N.E.3d at ––––). Any delay in
defendant's removal would have permitted further disruption of the
proceedings and risked physical danger to the public, jurors, judge,
court officers and staff and the lawyers. As the court had earlier
observed, “things get ugly very fast in a [quite small] courtroom.” The
fact that defendant was handcuffed did not eliminate the possibility
that he could physically move about and further disrupt the proceedings
and injure those in attendance. Indeed, defendant had previously
displayed violent sudden outbursts and there was no certainty that
handcuffs would prevent him from reacting in the same manner.
People v. Dunton, No. 42, 2024 WL 1723124, at *5 (N.Y. Apr. 23, 2024)
No comments:
Post a Comment