Shackling a Defendant Leads to Murder Conviction Reversal
"Shackling is an inherently prejudicial practice that undermines the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the jury, hampers the defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, and impacts the overall dignity of the judicial process," Chief Justice Harold Melton said.
May 04, 2020 at 10:09 PM
5 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction Monday because the judge required the defendant to be shackled during the trial.
"It is well established that 'no person should be tried while shackled . . . except as a last resort,'" Chief Justice Harold Melton wrote for a unanimous court. "The law has long forbidden routine use of visible shackles during the guilt phase; it permits a State to shackle a criminal defendant only in the presence of a special need." Melton cited the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion from Illinois v. Allen in 1970.
"Shackling is an inherently prejudicial practice that undermines the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the jury, hampers the defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, and impacts the overall dignity of the judicial process," Melton said.
The opinion reverses the 2016 conviction of Esco Hill for malice murder. Hill represented himself at trial.
"I'm just glad I could help him finish this up," the winning lawyer, Christina Marie Cribbs of the Georgia Public Defender Council appellate division, told the Daily Report in a phone call Monday. "I just helped him bring it home."
Cribbs said the successful appeal was only possible because Hill made the proper objections to being forced to appear in front of the jury wearing shackles on his arms and legs during the six-day trial in Chattooga County Superior Court before Judge Kristina Cook Graham, daughter of famed criminal defense lawyer Bobby Lee Cook.
Co-defendant Hjalmar Rodriquez made the same objection—although Rodriquez dropped out in the middle of the trial after pleading guilty. They were both incarcerated at Hayes State Prison and accused of killing another inmate, Alford Morris, in 2011. "Morris had a reputation for attacking Muslim inmates and stealing their possessions," Melton said. A group of Muslim inmates attacked Morris after he attacked Rodriquez. Rodriquez sought help from Hill, who was respected as a leader of the Muslim prisioners.
Cribbs said a witness testified to seeing Rodriquez stab Morris. But the only testimony against Hill was that he tripped Morris when Morris tried to run away. And that testimony was from a guard Hill impeached on cross examination with an earlier conflicting statement saying it wasn't clear who tripped Morris.
On the day Morris was killed, Hill had already been in prison for 20 years serving a life sentence for armed robbery, though he wasn't yet 40, Cribbs said.
Five years later, Hill was on trial for murder before Graham. In answer to the question of why the defendants couldn't wear stun belts instead of shackles, the judge said and Melton quoted: "I'm going to stay with the restraints we have. We've had several hearings in this case. When you gentlemen were arraigned you were under a lot more physical constraints than you are now. The Court was going to allow you to remain without your hands under shackles but just feet shackles until we had problems with Mr. Hill and we have security issues. Security is a very serious issue here, this is a very old courthouse. We have marvelous human resources but very poor physical resources. So I rely upon my security decisions."
Hill asked another question: "One more thing. Your Honor, can you state for the record what the security issues were with Hill that required restraints because …"
But the judge interrupted: "I said all I'm going to say about it, Mr. Hill."
Cribbs said that by the time she got the case in 2017, Hill had been held in solitary confinement at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson—home of the state's death row—for nearly seven years.
She found it remarkable that he was even able to carry on a conversation. Yet they talked for three and a half hours. And he was able to identify the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Illinois v. Allen that ultimately won his appeal.
"That case was 50 years ago," Cribbs said. "Hopefully this will be a good, clear message that we should not be doing that, and that this really renders a trial unconstitutional."
Her opponents were Lookout Mountain Circuit District Attorney Herbert "Buzz" Franklin and Assistant DA Christopher Arnt, who tried the case and handled the oral argument for the appeal. Neither Franklin nor Arnt responded to a request for comment Monday.
"Hill contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to make the necessary factual findings to justify its security decision; allow Hill the opportunity to challenge that decision by calling witnesses or holding a hearing; and consider alternative security measures, especially in light of his pro se status. He further argues that the trial court's decision prejudiced his right to a fair trial," Melton said. "We agree."
The case is Hill v. State, No. S20A0285.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMorgan & Morgan Litigators Flip $3.75M Jury Verdict Into $5.6M Settlement With State Farm
5 minute readMuscogee Co. Jury Returns $42M Verdict Against Garbage Company After Collision Results in Amputation
13 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250