State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 16 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 97681-3,97681-3 |
| Citation | 467 P.3d 97,195 Wash.2d 841 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. John W. JACKSON, Sr., Petitioner. |
Nancy P. Collins, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 3rd Ave. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98101-3647, Washington Appellate Project, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 610, Seattle, WA, 98101, for Petitioner.
Jesse Espinoza, Clallam County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 223 E. 4th St. Ste. 11, Port Angeles, WA, 98362-3000, for Respondent.
Gretchen Eileen Verhoef, Spokane County Prosecutors Office, 1100 W. Mallon Ave., Spokane, WA, 99260-0270, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Teymur Gasanovich Askerov, Black & Askerov, PLLC, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1111, Seattle, WA, 98104-1720, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Melissa R. Lee, Jessica Levin, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Korematsu Center For Law & Equality, Robert S. Chang, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave. Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.
La Rond Baker, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1703, David Ventura Montes, Attorney at Law, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 250, Seattle, WA, 98104-1765, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of King County Department of Public Defense.
Alexandria Marie Hohman, The Washington Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defender Association.
Heather Lynn McKimmie, Disability Rights Washington, 315 5th Ave. S. Ste. 850, Seattle, WA, 98104-2691, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Disability Rights Washington.
Nancy Lynn Talner, Antoinette M. Davis, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Crystal Andrea Pardue, Attorney at Law, Po Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Aclu of Washington Foundation.
¶1 This case concerns the systemic and routine shackling of incarcerated persons without an individualized inquiry into the need for restraints. In 2017, John Jackson Sr. was charged with assault in the second degree, domestic violence, for strangling his fiancée. At every court appearance, Jackson was forced to wear some form of restraints pursuant to jail policy. The trial court did not engage in any individualized determination of whether restraints were necessary for courtroom safety but, instead, filed a consolidated opinion adopting the jail policy for all superior court appearances for all incarcerated defendants. After a jury found Jackson guilty, he appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to due process was violated when he was forced to wear restraints without an individualized inquiry into their necessity.
¶2 The Court of Appeals held that the shackling of Jackson without an individualized inquiry into whether shackles were necessary violated his constitutional rights. However, it also held that this violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving Jackson with a constitutional violation without a remedy.
¶3 We affirm the Court of Appeals' holding that the shackling of Jackson in his pretrial hearings without an individualized determination violated his constitutional rights. However, we reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that this violation was harmless. The burden is on the State to prove the harmlessness of the shackling, and the State has not shown the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals on harmlessness and remand for a new trial with instructions that at all stages of the proceedings, the court shall make an individualized inquiry into whether shackles or restraints are necessary, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶4 In June 2017, the State charged Jackson with assault in the second degree, domestic violence, for strangling his fiancée, Darci Black, during an event that occurred on May 25, 2017.
¶5 On June 19, 2017, Jackson appeared in court for his first appearance. He was shackled with handcuffs and a belly chain. Immediately after the court appointed a public defender, the public defender filed a stock motion on Jackson's behalf objecting to the use of restraints and shackles and moved for their removal. Jackson's attorney alleged in the motion that the court's use of restraints pursuant to jail policy requiring restraints for all nonjury trial proceedings violated Jackson's due process right to be free from restraint under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. The court declined to rule on the motion to allow the State to respond. Due to the seriousness of the offense, Jackson's two prior domestic violence convictions, and his prior warrant history, the court set bail at $35,000. The court refused to lower this bail amount at both the arraignment and the status hearing.
¶6 On July 12, 2017, the trial court held a consolidated motion hearing on all of the restraint-and-removal motions before the Clallam County Superior Court, including Jackson's. Three weeks later, on August 4, 2017, the court issued an opinion for "all restraint/shackling motions currently before the court and [the opinion] reflects the unified position of the Clallam County Superior Court on this issue." Clerk's Papers at 64. The court acknowledged the "safety-related concerns about defendants that would otherwise be held in a secure jail facility being brought into a courtroom unsecured" and "potential problems associated with defendants being so humiliated and distracted by their restraints that it interferes with their ability to communicate with their lawyers." Id . at 65. The court granted the defendants' motions "to the extent that the court agrees there are less restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest of courtroom security" and proposed videoconferencing as a viable alternative to defendants being shackled in court. Id. at 65-66. However, the court noted that the target date to implement videoconferencing was over a year later.
¶7 Until the implementation of videoconferencing, the court indicated that the policy from the January 2017 opinion was still in effect. Under that opinion, the Clallam County Superior Court adopted the Clallam County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) policies on the restraint and shackling of in-custody defendants appearing in court. These policies are as follows:1
| First appearance | "waist chain, cuffs, and leg irons" |
| All superior court hearings, other than trials | "full restraints (waist chain, cuffs, and leg irons)" if "maximum classification"or"waist chain and cuffs" if "minimum or medium custody" And all inmates wear "jail uniform" |
| Trials | "Officer will secure either right or left leg brace on the inmate" Wear jail uniform |
| "Jury trial only" | Leg brace; May wear personal clothing rather than jail uniform |
¶8 On August 21, 2017, the parties proceeded to a jury trial. Pursuant to the CCSO shackling policy, Jackson was fitted with a leg brace for trial. The leg brace was not visible outside of Jackson's clothes; it would lock into position if his leg was straight and could unlock from the straightened position with a release mechanism. Jackson's attorney objected to the use of the leg brace as the court had not made any rulings about security or the need for any type of restraints. The court stated that it felt the "limited security measure" was appropriate and told counsel if Jackson wished to testify, the court would ensure that he made it to the witness box without the jury present to see him "perhaps have some difficulty walking" due to the brace. 1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Aug. 21, 2017) at 75.
¶9 At trial, both Black and Jackson testified to the events that day. Black testified that she and Jackson had driven to a doctor's appointment, and on the way home, they stopped to have sexual intercourse. Jackson became upset, started yelling at Black, and accused her of cheating, which Black denied. Jackson had also ripped her engagement ring off of her finger. Black reassured Jackson she had not cheated, and he calmed down "for maybe 15, 20 minutes." 2 VRP (Aug. 22, 2017) at 316. When Black tried to put her pants on, Jackson pushed her, threatened to kill her, and then began strangling her. Black tried to get up, but Jackson grabbed her throat and "just kept squeezing, saying, die, why don't you F'ing die." Id . at 317. After he released Black's neck, Jackson continued screaming at her and threatening to kill her, and proceeded to strangle her two more times. After releasing her for the third time, Jackson began crying and apologizing. Jackson then drove Black home while threatening to commit suicide. Later that day Black told her sister what had happened, and she went to the hospital for an examination. The doctor who examined her testified that Black had injuries on her neck consistent with being strangled.
¶10 After the State rested, defense counsel informed the court that Jackson would be testifying and stated, "[M]aybe we should get him up there first, so we don't have that [leg restraint] issue." 3 VRP (Aug. 22, 2017) at 447. Jackson asked if he had to stand when the jury came in, to which the court asked if it was difficult to stand with the brace on. Defense counsel stated, "[H]e's been doing it, but the brace will be basically on the leg next to them, when he's sitting up there, it's on his left leg."2 Id . at 448. The court told Jackson he did not have to stand for the jury and he could take his oath seated. Id . Jackson indicated that the jury "can actually see [the brace]" and "it's gonna be noticeable for them." Id . The court told him to "[j]ust stay seated then." Id .
¶11 As to the events on May 25, 2017, Jackson testified to a vastly different story than Black's testimony. Jackson testified that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Lange
...State v. Hutchinson, 135 Wash.2d 863, 882-83, 959 P.2d 1061 (1998), abrogated in part on other grounds, State v. Jackson, 195 Wash.2d 841, 856, 467 P.3d 97 (2020).50 189 Wash.2d 420, 403 P.3d 45 (2017).51 184 Wash. App. 790, 339 P.3d 200 (2014).52 189 Wash.2d at 427, 430-31, 403 P.3d 45.53 ......
-
State v. Smith
...doubt, or whether the evidence against the defendant is so overwhelming that no rational conclusion other than guilt can be reached. Id. at 855 (quoting State v. Clark, Wn.2d 731, 775-76, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001)). We review the trial court's decision to restrain the defendant for an abuse of di......
-
State v. Madden
...to appear at nonjury pretrial hearings free from all bonds or shackles absent extraordinary circumstances. State v. Jackson, 195 Wash.2d 841, 852, 467 P.3d 97 (2020). In Jackson, our Supreme Court recognized the abominable legacy of shackling in the United States, which sentiments we echo:T......
-
State v. Canela
... ... at 797 ... "Exclusion ... or suppression of evidence is an extraordinary remedy and ... should be applied narrowly." State v ... Hutchinson , 135 Wn.2d 863, 882, 959 P.2d 1061 (1998), ... abrogated on other grounds by State v. Jackson , 195 ... Wn.2d 841, 467 P.3d 97 (2020)). "The appropriate remedy ... for late disclosure is typically to continue the trial to ... give the other party time to interview the new witness and ... prepare to address his or her testimony." State v ... Kipp , 171 Wn.App ... ...