Illinois v. Allen, No. 606

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation25 L.Ed.2d 353,397 U.S. 337,90 S.Ct. 1057
Docket NumberNo. 606
PartiesState of ILLINOIS, Petitioner, v. William ALLEN
Decision Date31 March 1970

See 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684.

Joel M. Flaum, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

H. Reed Harris, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him * * *.' We have held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the guarantees of this clause obligatory upon the States. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). One of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial. Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892). The question presented in this case is whether an accused can claim the benefit of this constitutional right to remain in the courtroom while at the same time he engages in speech and conduct which is so noisy, disorderly, and disruptive that it is exceedingly difficult or wholly impossible to carry on the trial.

The issue arose in the following way. The respondent, Allen, was convicted by an Illinois jury of armed robbery and was sentenced to serve 10 to 30 years in the Illinois State Penitentiary. The evidence against him showed that on August 12, 1956, he entered a tavern in Illinois and, after ordering a drink, took $200 from the bartender at gunpoint. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed his conviction, People v. Allen, 37 Ill.2d 167, 226 N.E.2d 1 (1967), and this Court denied certiorari. 389 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 226, 19 L.Ed.2d 225 (1967). Later Allen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court alleging that he had been wrongfully deprived by the Illinois trial judge of his constitutional right to remain present throughout his trial. Finding no constitutional violation, the District Court declined to issue the writ. The Court of Appeals reversed, 413 F.2d 232 (1969), Judge Hastings dissenting.

The facts surrounding Allen's expulsion from the courtroom are set out in the Court of Appeals' opinion sustaining Allen's contention:

'After his indictment and during the pretrial stage, the petitioner (Allen) refused court-appointed counsel and indicated to the trial court on several occasions that he wished to conduct his own defense. After considerable argument by the petitioner, the trial judge told him, 'I'll let you be your own lawyer, but I'll ask Mr. Kelly (court-appointed counsel) (to) sit in and protect the record for you, insofar as possible.'

'The trial began on September 9, 1957. After the State's Attorney had accepted the first four jurors following their voir dire examination, the petitioner began examining the first juror and continued at great length. Finally, the trial judge interrupted the petitioner, requesting him to confine his questions solely to matters relating to the prospective juror's qualifications. At that point, the petitioner started to argue with the judge in a most abusive and disrespectful manner. At last, and seemingly in desperation, the judge asked appointed counsel to proceed with the examination of the jurors. The petitioner continued to talk, proclaiming that the appointed attorney was not going to act as his lawyer. He terminated his remarks by saying, 'When I go out for lunchtime, you're (the judge) going to be a corpse here.' At that point he tore the file which his attorney had and threw the papers on the floor. The trial judge thereupon stated to the petitioner, 'One more outbreak of that sort and I'll remove you from the courtroom.' This warning had no effect on the petitioner. He continued to talk back to the judge, saying, 'There's not going to be no trial, either. I'm going to sit here and you're going to talk and you can bring your shackles out and straight jacket and put them on me and tape my mouth, but it will do no good because there's not going to be no trial.' After more abusive remarks by the petitioner, the trial judge ordered the trial to proceed in the petitioner's absence. The petitioner was removed from the courtroom. The voir dire examination then continued and the jury was selected in the absence of the petitioner.

'After a noon recess and before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the petitioner, appearing before the judge, complained about the fairness of the trial and his appointed attorney. He also said he wanted to be present in the court during his trial. In reply, the judge said that the petitioner would be permitted to remain in the courtroom if he 'behaved (himself) and (did) not interfere with the introduction of the case.' The jury was brought in and seated. Counsel for the petitioner then moved to exclude the witnesses from the courtroom. The (petitioner) protested this effort on the part of his attorney, saying: 'There is going to be no proceeding. I'm going to start talking and I'm going to keep on talking all through the trial. There's not going to be no trial like this. I want my sister and my friends here in court to testify for me.' The trial judge thereupon ordered the petitioner removed from the courtroom.' 413 F.2d, at 233 234.

After this second removal, Allen remained out of the courtroom during the presentation of the State's case-in-chief, except that he was brought in on several occasions for purposes of identification. During one of these latter appearances, Allen responded to one of the judge's questions with vile and abusive language. After the prosecution's case had been presented, the trial judge reiterated his promise to Allen that he could return to the courtroom whenever he agreed to conduct himself properly. Allen gave some assurances of proper conduct and was permitted to be present through the remainder of the trial, principally his defense, which was conducted by his appointed counsel.

The Court of Appeals went on to hold that the Supreme Court of Illinois was wrong in ruling that Allen had by his conduct relinquished his constitutional right to be present, declaring that:

'No conditions may be imposed on the absolute right of a criminal defendant to be present at all stages of the proceeding. The insistence of a defendant that he exercise this right under unreasonable conditions does not amount to a waiver. Such conditions, if insisted upon, should and must be dealt with in a manner that does not compel the relinquishment of his right.

'In light of the decision in Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) and Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583, 47 S.Ct. 478, 71 L.Ed. 787 (1927), as well as the constitutional mandate of the sixth amendment, we are of the view that the defendant should not have been excluded from the courtroom during his trial despite his disruptive and disrespectful conduct. The proper course for the trial judge was to have restrained the defendant by whatever means necessary, even if those means included his being shackled and gagged.' 413 F.2d at 235.

The Court of Appeals felt that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be present at his own trial was so 'absolute' that, no matter how unruly or disruptive the defendant's conduct might be, he could never be held to have lost that right so long as he continued to insist upon it, as Allen clearly did. Therefore the Court of Appeals concluded that a trial judge could never expel a defendant from his own trial and that the judge's ultimate remedy when faced with an obstreperous defendant like Allen who determines to make his trial impossible is to bind and gag him.1 We cannot agree that the Sixth Amendment, the cases upon which the Court of Appeals relied, or any other cases of this Court so handicap a trial judge in conducting a criminal trial. The broad dicta in Hopt v. Utah, supra, and Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892), that a trial can never continue in the defendant's absence have been expressly rejected. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912). We accept instead the statement of Mr. Justice Cardozo who, speaking for the Court in Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934), said: 'No doubt the privilege (of personally confronting witnesses) may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct.'2 Although mindful that courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the loss of constitutional rights, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), we explicitly hold today that a defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom.3 Once lost, the right to be present can, of course, be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.

It is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the hallmarks of all court proceedings in our country. The flagrant disregard in the courtroom of elementary standards of proper conduct should not and cannot be tolerated. We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the appropriate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situations. We think there are at least three constitutionally permissible ways for a trial judge to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2901 cases
  • Ramos v. Racette
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 4, 2012
    ...must be provided withreplacement counsel in his absence, see Davis v. Grant, 532 F.3d 132, 144-45 (2d Cir. 2008); cf. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 340-41 (1970), this rule does not extend to the situation here -where Ramos voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings by deliberate ......
  • State v. Connor, No. 18099.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 14, 2009
    ...his choice must be honored out of that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law. Illinois v. Allen, [397 U.S. 337, 350-51, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970)] (Brennan, J., concurring)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613, 647, 916 A.2d 1......
  • People v. Lee
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1973
    ...79, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213; California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157-158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489; Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 [reh. den. 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80].) Basic to our judicial system is the right to cross-examin......
  • People v. Burnett
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1987 the lifeblood of the law.' " 5 (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 834, 95 S.Ct. at p. 2541, quoting Illinois v. Allen (1970) 397 U.S. 337, 350-351, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1064, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, conc. opn. of Brennan, J.) Where, though competent to stand trial, the individual in question is so mental......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 books & journal articles
  • Washington Defendants' New Right of Pre-trial Flight
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 19-03, March 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...106 (1934) (The Sixth Amendment assures the privilege to confront one's accusers face to face in federal court.). 24. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 (1970); Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 371 25. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 401 (1965). 26. Wash. Const. art. I, § 22. 27. Sta......
  • Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Criminal Defense Tools and Techniques
    • March 30, 2017
    ...find their source in the constitutional requirement of due process. [ Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005); Illinois v. Allen , 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970).] [§20:79 Reserved] D. Challenges for Cause §20:80 No Limit to Challenges for Cause The parties are entitled to strike any juror who......
  • Today's Confrontation Clause (after Crawford and Melendez-diaz)
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 43, 2022
    • Invalid date regarded as 'subject to cross-examination' when he is placed on the stand, under oath, and responds willingly to questions."). 243. 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 244. See infra Part IX and accompanying text. 245. See, e.g. , note 228 and accompanying and following text. 246. Giles v. California, ......
  • U.s. Supreme Court Decisions: 1974-1975
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 4-9, September 1975
    • Invalid date
    ...own detriment, his choice must be honored out of 'that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law'. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)." The choice of self-representation must be knowingly and intelligently made as it is in effect a relinquishment of many traditional b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 43 Defendant's Presence
    • United States
    • US Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    • January 1, 2023
    ...ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES-1974 AMENDMENTThe revision of rule 43 is designed to reflect Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed. 2d 353 (1970). In Allen, the court held that "there are at least three constitutionally permissible ways for a trial judge to handle an obstreper......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT