Filed: Jul. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER TERRENCE F. McVERRY , District Judge . In advance of trial, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference on July 13, 2016 with Pro Se Plaintiff Robert Hankins, defense counsel, and a representative of the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") to discuss the security measures, if any, that will be used at the upcoming jury trial and the efforts that will be taken to minimize the potential prejudice to Plaintiff in light of those measures. 1 This Memorandum Order reflects t
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER TERRENCE F. McVERRY , District Judge . In advance of trial, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference on July 13, 2016 with Pro Se Plaintiff Robert Hankins, defense counsel, and a representative of the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") to discuss the security measures, if any, that will be used at the upcoming jury trial and the efforts that will be taken to minimize the potential prejudice to Plaintiff in light of those measures. 1 This Memorandum Order reflects th..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge.
In advance of trial, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference on July 13, 2016 with Pro Se Plaintiff Robert Hankins, defense counsel, and a representative of the U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") to discuss the security measures, if any, that will be used at the upcoming jury trial and the efforts that will be taken to minimize the potential prejudice to Plaintiff in light of those measures.1 This Memorandum Order reflects the Court's ruling(s) on those matters.2
A decision regarding the types of security measures that will be used at trial ultimately rests with the Court, not the Marshals. See Sides v. Cherry, 609 F.3d 576, 582 (3d Cir. 2010). In exercising its discretion, the Court has to "balance the prejudice to the prisoner-plaintiff against the need to maintain safety or security." Id. at 581 (citations omitted). To that end, the Court "may rely on a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) records bearing on the inmate's `proclivity toward disruptive and/or violent conduct' (such as the inmate's criminal history and prison disciplinary record), and the opinions of `correctional and/or law enforcement officers and the federal marshals.'" Id. (quoting Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 246 (7th Cir. 1993)). "[T]hough a district court may rely `heavily' on advice from court security officers, it `bears the ultimate responsibility' of determining what restraints are necessary." Id. (quoting Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 248 (7th Cir. 1993)). If the Court decides that "restraints are necessary, it should `impose no greater restraints than are necessary, and [ ] must take steps to minimize the prejudice resulting from the presence of the restraints.'" Id. (quoting Davidson v. Riley, 44 F.3d 1118, 1123 (2d Cir. 1995)). "[T]aking steps to reduce the visibility of restraints and the giving of limiting or curative instructions dealing with the shackles are appropriate methods of eliminating potential prejudice." Woods, 5 F.3d at 249.
The facts placed on the record during the telephonic conference demonstrate the need for security measures to ensure safety in the Courtroom during trial. For instance, defense counsel explained that, in Mr. Hankins' eighteen-yeas in DOC custody, he has amassed over two-hundred (200) misconducts—eighty of which were assaultive in nature while twenty-six were actual assault incidents. Mr. Hankins has also sustained an additional conviction while incarcerated for aggravated assault with bodily injury to an officer. As such, he has been designated as the highest security level, with placement on the restricted release list and in the special management unit, which is the "last resort," so to speak.
With this background in mind, the Court deems physical restraints necessary; Mr. Hankins will remain in leg-irons throughout the trial and wear under his clothes a "rack belt," which is capable of delivering an electronic charge/stun. To minimize the potential prejudice to Mr. Hankins, the Court will order him to be moved into the Courtroom outside the presence of the jury, sit him furthest from the jury, and ask him to testify from counsel table—both of which will be skirted with a drape. A representative of the USMS has also ensured the Court that the leg irons will be wrapped so that they are not audible to the (potential) jurors. In addition, the Court will direct the DOC officials and/or Deputy U.S. Marshal(s) responsible for escorting and supervising Mr. Hankins to disperse throughout the Courtroom to make them less conspicuous to the (potential) jurors. These measures will substantially minimize, if not eliminate, the likelihood that the jurors will know of the security measures. If it comes to the Court's attention, however, that the shackles or other security measures become visible or otherwise apparent to the jury during the trial, the Court will give a curative instruction.3
In light the pending transfer of Mr. Hankins to a facility in or around the Western District of Pennsylvania, defense counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Memorandum Order to him FORTHWITH.
SO ORDERED.
