People v. Duplissey
Decision Date | 09 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 49,49 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion DUPLISSEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
S. Jerome Bronson, Pros. Atty., Oakland County, Dennis Donohue, Chief Appellate Counsel, by Bruce T. Leitman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Marion Duplissey, in pro. per.
Before the Entire Bench.
Our grant of leave (379 Mich. 751) was 'limited to whether the defendant and appellant should have been tried while handcuffed and whether the defendant and appellant should have been granted a separate trial.'
Appellant and three others were tried on charges of armed robbery 1 and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. 2 In the first trial a mistrial was granted. The case was docketed for a new trial in the next term of the circuit court. When the case was called the codefendants, other than appellant, moved for a continuance on the ground that a partial transcript ordered by them had not been completed. The trial judge denied the motion. Thereupon, two of defendant's three codefendants embarked on an announced course of conduct which would make it impossible to proceed with trial. They refused to be seated in the courtroom. They refused to allow the trial judge to announce his rulings without interruption. Their statements included:
The situation became so intolerable the trial judge, after entreating the obstreperous defendants to maintain proper courtroom decorum, finally ordered them handcuffed and announced that if necessary they would be gagged. Part of the foregoing took place in the presence of the whole jury panel summoned for the term.
A careful reading of the record reveals that defendant-appellant here took no part in any of the foregoing described conduct. When the trial judge questioned the codefendants as to their future intentions, appellant replied through his counsel as follows:
'We feel at this time that a motion for a separate trial, that he be tried individually, is in order and would request at this time that the Court grant us a separate trial in front of a completely different jury panel, which would have to be the next term.
Thereafter, appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Manning, Docket No. 81682
...See People v. Schram, 378 Mich. 145, 142 N.W.2d 662 (1966); People v. Hurst, 396 Mich. 1, 238 N.W.2d 6 (1976); People v. Duplissey, 380 Mich. 100, 155 N.W.2d 850 (1968). In his opinion for the Court in Hurst, supra, 396 Mich. at 4, 238 N.W.2d 6, Justice Levin stated, "[a] defendant is entit......
-
People v. Anderson, 4
...that a defendant may be prejudiced in the eyes of the jury by being shackled and manacled in their presence. People v. Duplissey, 380 Mich. 100, 155 N.W.2d 850 (1968). However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there was no prejudicial error in this case and we adopt that portion of t......
-
People v. Baskin
...the trial of a criminal case has long been recognized as an important component of a fair and impartial trial' ". People v. Duplissey, 380 Mich. 100, 103, 155 N.W.2d 850 (1968). Further, such a procedure should be permitted only to prevent the escape of the defendant or to prevent him from ......
-
People v. Mallory, s. 64270
...prevent him from injuring bystanders and officers of the court or to maintain a quiet and peaceable trial.' " People v. Duplissey, 380 Mich. 100, 103-104, 155 N.W.2d 850 (1968), quoting Odell v. Hudspeth, 189 F.2d 300, 302 (CA 10, 1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 873, 72 S.Ct. 116, 96 L.Ed. 656 (......