State v. Byrnes, 76-149-M

• Decision Date: 27 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-149-M,76-149-M
• Citation: 357 A.2d 448,116 R.I. 925
• Parties: STATE v. Ralph S. BYRNES et al. P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 448

357 A.2d 448

STATE v. Ralph S. BYRNES et al.

No. 76-149-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 27, 1976.

Julius C. Michaelson, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Benik, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Harris L. Berson, Paul J. DiMaio, Bevilacqua & Cicilline, John F. Cicilline, Providence, Harvey Brower, Worchester, Mass., for defendants.

ORDER

This is a motion which asks that we reconsider the denial of a petition for certiorari. The order denying the petition was entered in this court on April 20, 1976. R.I., 355 A.2d 411 (1976).

The petitioners, all of whom have been indicted on charges of robbery, are being held without bail. At the present time they are before the Superior Court, where a jury which will hear evidence on the robbery charge is being selected. When the jury selection process began on April 12, 1976, petitioners moved that four uniformed and armed State Troopers be excluded from the courtroom. The Troopers are seated to the rear of the defendants in a front row of seats usually occupied by spectators. They are, for want of a better description, part of the courtroom security force. The trial justice denied petitioners' motion, and this denial was the subject of their petition for certiorari.

The petitioners, in moving for reconsideration of our April 20, 1976, order, have furnished us with a transcript that was not available at the time we originally considered the petition. The transcript shows that, after listening to one of the petitioners and counsel for two others, the trial justice remarked:

"Now, looking to the question of what apparently some look upon as a loosely used term as that of 'security'. Perhaps the Court has been harboring a misconception, but let me let all of you gentlemen understand clearly that the presence of the troopers here, and the number of committing squad, is not by the dictate of this Court. Should you be laboring under the misconception that this Court has ordered the troopers here, then you are mistaken. *** The security that we have in this courtroom is, as the Court understands it, a direct result of those to whom that responsibility has been delegated by the Supreme Court Committee on Security. I am not familiar with the composition of that committee. I do know that our Presiding Justice serves as a member of that committee, but it is that committee which has delegated to the security officials the responsibility to determine in any trial, from their own information, what the...