Lemons v. Skidmore

• Citation: 985 F.2d 354
• Decision Date: 09 February 1993
• Docket Number: No. 90-2679,90-2679
• Parties: Edward LEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain Marvin SKIDMORE, Lieutenant Jack Durham, and Correctional Officer Robert Gaither, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Page 354

985 F.2d 354

Edward LEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain Marvin SKIDMORE, Lieutenant Jack Durham, and Correctional Officer Robert Gaither, et al Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-2679.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Oct. 21, 1992.

Decided Feb. 9, 1993.

Barry Levenstam, Jerold S. Solovy, Cathryn E. Albrecht (argued), Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert G. Toews, Office of the Atty. Gen., Chicago, IL (argued), for defendants-appellees.

Before CUDAHY and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and WILL, Senior District Judge. ^*

WILL, Senior District Judge.

Edward Lemons was a prisoner in the Segregation Unit at the Pontiac Correctional Center in 1986 (he is currently incarcerated elsewhere). He filed a § 1983 complaint pro se in June 1986 charging that in January 1986 the defendants had attacked and beaten him so severely that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The events took place during a shakedown, in which prisoners are handcuffed and removed from their cells while their cells are searched for contraband. Lemons testified that he thought it was not a real shakedown, but that they were telling him that to get him in handcuffs and attack him. Thus, when ordered to come to the front of his cell and cuff up, he refused and shouted that they were going to kill him. He asked for a counselor (counselors were sometimes available during a shakedown), but none was available. The defendants described him as ranting and raving. Finally the defendants decided to enter the cell and subdue him. They testified that he was hit only once, with a bare fist, after he first attacked them. He claims that he was hit repeatedly with fists wrapped in handcuffs, and that this was excessive force.

His suit went to trial and a lawyer was appointed to represent him. Before trial his attorney asked that during the trial Lemons not have to appear in the handcuffs and leg irons in which he was brought to court. The attorney noted the substantial number of court officers and marshals in the room--and in addition that the five defendants were uniformed prison guards--and asked if the magistrate judge really thought any restraints were necessary, especially when weighed against the prejudice to the defendant before the jury. Magistrate Judge Kauffman stated:

Well, the position I take is since Mr. Lemons is in the custody of the Department of Corrections, they set the rules for how he will be restrained, if at all. (1 Tr. 5)

Predictably, someone from the Department of Corrections stated that it was their policy to keep the restraints in place. Magistrate Judge Kauffman replied, "Okay, you are in charge." (1 Tr. 6) Lemons was required to attend and testify in both handcuffs and leg irons.

The magistrate judge directed a verdict for one defendant (Skidmore); the jury found for the remaining defendants, and this appeal followed. The main claim on appeal is that the jury was prejudiced by viewing Lemons in handcuffs and leg irons, particularly since he had to walk before them to demonstrate his injuries, and that a new trial should be ordered. The second argument on appeal has to do with the jury instructions. The magistrate judge never defined excessive force. However, there was no objection made at the time, and this claim is therefore waived. ¹

* * *

This is a case of first impression in the Seventh Circuit. ² At first glance, and based on the parties' briefs, this case presents a question of what is required for a fair trial and due process. There are many cases dealing with the shackling of defendants in criminal cases, a practice which has been found to violate the constitutional right to a fair trial except in cases of great need. While these cases involving criminal defendants are not controlling in a case involving a civil plaintiff, they do provide the guidance of an analogous situation. The defendants dismiss these cases entirely, and rely on another line of cases dealing with the rights of prisoners to have access to courts for bringing civil suits, also based on the Constitution. Finally, although not argued by either party, this court also has supervisory authority under which we may require trial courts "to follow procedures deemed desirable from the viewpoint of sound judicial practice although in nowise commanded by statute or by the Constitution." Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973).

All three analyses compel the same conclusion in this case: The magistrate judge abused his discretion by relying on the self-serving opinion of fellow penal officers of the defendants and not holding a hearing to determine what, if any, restraints were necessary, taking no steps to minimize the prejudice to Mr. Lemons in having him appear to be a violent and dangerous person who required leg irons and handcuff restraints, and in failing to give a curative instruction or take any other ameliorative steps.

Under the principle enunciated in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1938), we will not decide a constitutional question when a case can be decided on other grounds. However, in developing common law rules under our supervisory authority, it is only sensible to examine analogous precedents for our guiding principles rather than simply enacting our own personal opinions, even if those precedents discuss constitutional questions which we do not reach here.

There is a constitutional right to a fair trial in a civil case. Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242, 248 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912, 96 S.Ct. 3201, 49 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1976); Bailey v. Systems Innovation, Inc., 852 F.2d 93, 98 (3d Cir.1988) ("fairness in a jury trial, whether criminal or civil in nature, is a vital constitutional right."). It is difficult, but essential to maintain this right for prisoner-plaintiffs. Harris v. Davis, 874 F.2d 461, 466 (7th Cir.1989) (Ripple, J. dissenting), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1027, 110 S.Ct. 735, 107 L.Ed.2d 754 (1990). The defendants correctly point out that civil litigants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one, and that a new trial will not be ordered unless there was an error that caused some prejudice to the substantial rights of the parties. MCI v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1173 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891, 104 S.Ct. 234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).

A long line of criminal cases has held that neither the defendant nor witnesses for the defense may be required to testify in shackles unless there is an "extreme need." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970):

[E]ven to contemplate such a technique, much less to see it, arouses a feeling that no person should be tried while shackled and gagged except as a last resort. Not only is it possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the jury's feelings about the defendant, but the use of this technique is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.

This standard applies whether the shackles and gags are used to quiet a disruptive defendant as in Allen or to prevent the defendant from escaping or causing injury. See Harrell v. Israel, 672 F.2d 632, 635 (7th Cir.1982).

While these cases involved criminal defendants and reached the constitutional question, which we do not here, the rationale for the rulings is directly relevant to this case. The courts found that the appearance of the defendant in shackles would prejudice the jury, causing them to believe that the person was dangerous. In Harrell, 672 F.2d at 635, the court stated that "courts must guard against practices which unnecessarily mark the defendant as a dangerous character or suggest that his guilt is a foregone conclusion." (emphasis supplied) While the plaintiff in this case was already a convicted felon, whether or not he was a dangerous person, one who was prone to outbursts of violence, was central to the trial of his case.

The defendants argue that there was no prejudice because the jury knew that Lemons was a convicted felon. However, not all convicted felons are so dangerous and violent that they must be brought to court and kept in handcuffs and leg irons. In a criminal case, the appearance of the defendant in shackles may prejudice a jury by weakening the presumption of innocence which the defendant is entitled to. In a civil case, the plaintiff is still entitled to a fair trial in which the jury decides the case based on admissible evidence. The shackles suggest to the jury in a civil case that the plaintiff is a violent person. Since plaintiff's tendency towards violence was at issue in this case, shackles inevitably prejudiced the jury. Cf. Holloway, supra (because the case involved living conditions "the plaintiff's status as a dangerous felon has no bearing on the issue the jury must decide," and therefore he was not prejudiced by having to appear in shackles).

While we have determined that being forced to appear in handcuffs and leg irons does prejudice to the plaintiff in a case such as this one, that does not end our inquiry. Even in the cases of criminal defendants, under the constitutional right to a fair trial, it is still permissible to require the party to appear in shackles if there is "extreme need." Thus we must consider what procedures should be followed, and compare them to what happened in this case. ³

In United States v. Amaro, 816 F.2d 284, 285 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1031, 107 S.Ct. 1961, 95 L.Ed.2d 532 (1987), we defined the extreme need standard as "necessary to maintain the security of the courtroom." The standards courts should use to determine the existence of need were discussed in Amaro and Harrell, supra. The primary focus is on the prisoner's "history of violence in the face of maximum security precautions." Amaro at 285. In Harrell the...