CSS 2020-02-10 Item 1B - Funding - 2 FTE Transport Officers for Inmate Appearances for $188,000

Browse Search

No. 51177-1-II MELNICK, J. (concurrence) — Although I concur in the majority's analysis and resolution of the shackling issue, I write separately to express my concerns regarding what the appropriate remedy should be when a court improperly shackles a person who appears before it.3 John W. Jackson, Sr. urges us to dispense with the hannless error test that we currently utilize and instead adopt a structural error analysis. Because the Court of Appeals is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, I concur with the majority's decision to not accept Jackson's invitation. However, I believe a new look at the appropriate remedy for what appears to be a statewide, systemic violation is warranted. The law is clear, well -settled, and not in dispute. A person has a right to appear "before the court with the appearance, dignity, and self-respect of a free and innocent man." State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 844, 975 P.2d 967 (1999). Thus, a defendant "is entitled to appear at trial free from all bonds or shackles except in extraordinary circumstances." Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 842. Restraints should only be used when necessary to prevent courtroom injuries, disorderly conduct, or escapes. Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 846. The rule on shackling is not confined to trials. State v. Lindstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d 388, 392, 429 P.3d 1116 (2018). "[R]egardless of the nature of the court proceeding or whether a jury is present," the court shall decide when and how shackles or restraints should be utilized. State v. Walker, 185 Wn. App. 790, 797, 344 P.3d 227 (2015).4 3 Nothing in this opinion should be construed to address the separate issues involving the use of shackles when transporting or detaining prisoners. 4 Although not applicable to this case, I also note that "[j]uveniles shall not be brought before the court wearing any physical restraint devices except when ordered by the court during or prior to the hearing." JuCR 1.6(a). 14 26