42 Cal. 165, 2,990, People v. Harrington

Docket Nº:2,990
Citation:42 Cal. 165
Opinion Judge:SPRAGUE, Judge
Party Name:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. JAMES HARRINGTON and WILLIAM MINOR
Attorney:George W. Tyler, for Appellants, Attorney General Hamilton, for Respondent,
Judge Panel:JUDGES: Sprague, J.
Case Date:October 01, 1871
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 165

42 Cal. 165

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

v.

JAMES HARRINGTON and WILLIAM MINOR

No. 2,990

Supreme Court of California

October, 1871

Appeal from the County Court of Calaveras County.

COUNSEL

George W. Tyler, for Appellants, argued that by the common law the appellants were entitled to appear for trial without shackles, and that the denial of that right prejudiced them in the minds of the jury. (Bract. 1, 3 de Caron. C. 18, Sec. 3; Flet. 1, 1 C. 31; 1 Britt. Ch. 5; 2 Hale's P. C. 219; 2 Hawk. P. C. 308; 4 Black. Com. 322, and notes; Waite's Case, Leach, 34; 6 State Trials, 230.) He also argued that the action of the Court was a violation of law. (Practice Act, Sec. 13.)

Attorney General Hamilton, for Respondent, argued that even if the action of the Court was erroneous, the matter of refusing to order the irons removed was no part of the trial of the cause.

JUDGES: Sprague, J.

OPINION

SPRAGUE, Judge

Page 166

The defendants were indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of robbery, and appeal from the judgment of the Court rendered against them upon the verdict. The only point now urged by the defendants against the validity of the judgment is presented by the following bill of exceptions:

" On the 22nd day of June, 1871, a jury was called, impaneled, and sworn in said cause to try said cause--the defendants at the time being in Court and in irons. The counsel for defendants asked that the irons be removed from the limbs of defendants while they were being tried. The Court refused to order the same to be done, and ruled and decided that said defendants should be tried while in irons--no circumstances or facts being shown to the Court why a different rule should be enforced in this cause than any other--the Court being of the opinion that no rights of defendants were violated by being tried in irons without their consent, to which ruling and decision of the Court the defendants, by counsel, then and there excepted."

Appellants insist that by the action of the Court in refusing, upon their motion, to direct the manacles which were upon their limbs to be removed while they were in Court upon trial, and compelling them to be tried while their limbs were shackled with irons, without any apparent or pretended

Page 167

necessity therefor, they were deprived of a substantial legal right, and that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP