"Get in the trunk"

Holy shit! That is scary!

They currently have 36 schools in "lockdown", 4 within the city limits, all others in the metro area(s) where the suspect has been spotted or has hijacked cars...they are encouraging parents to NOT go check their children out of school because of the obvious traffic problems it could cause...but if my kid was in one of those schools - nothing could keep me from going and getting him.

When I first read this, I thought to myself "Who is this guy trying to kid? How far does he think he's going to get?"

According to the radio (750 am), this Judge was in the old courthouse, they do not have holding cells adjacent to the courtrooms like the new courthouse does. As a result, the suspect was being held in a jury room off the courtroom...this is where he gained control of the Deputy's gun, shot her, then went into the courtroom and shot the Judge.

Something tells me they will either renovate the old courthouse to include holding cells, or move all criminal cases into the new courthouse to prevent anything like this happening in the future.

Very sad story.

Call me a chauvinist pig, but there's no way a FEMALE officer should have been guarding a male prisoner. Especially one on trial for RAPE.

Fucking stupid.

You are a chauvinist pig.

I don't know anything about the deputy, but I would hope there is a certain level of physical fitness one must possess in order to have a job like this. I would also hope they wouldn't "dumb down" this level in order to include all sexes - sometimes people just aren't qualified to hold certain dangerous jobs - that's just the way it is.

Chalk this one up to political correctness run amock.

Nichols was in street clothes and unshackled. Just because that might prejudice a jury. Why can't the judge just say at the beginning of the trial that he's shackled because of the severity of the accusation?

I'm all for guaranteeing a fair trial. But today, it seems that to be considered "fair", it must be mistake-free and prejudiced in favor of the defendant.

I don't know about not having a woman guarding a dangerous male criminal. I wouldn't go that far. But if it turns out she's inexperienced and was the only one in the room with a gun, I'd say the courts were guilty of believing their own politically correct definitions. A man accused of what Brian Nichols was accused of must be considered dangerous.

(just to make it clear, I'm not referring to race in any way - political correctness in this case means assuming all criminals or all criminal defendants are just like the rest of us without any history of violence - even if that's just an accusation).

I'm probably as defendant-friendly a non-criminal as there is on this board, but even I am shocked by this if it is true.

If a guy is dangerous enough that you need an armed deputy to guard him, then he is dangerous enough to handcuff. I agree that a curative instruction to the jury ("Everyone accused of a violent crime is required to be handcuffed; do not read anything into the appearance of this defendant.") would have been enough.

got a link for that information, Jim? I agree, that's just PC stupidity if it's true.

It's in the MSNBC article, which also contains this:


James Bailey, a juror at Nichols’ trial, said the jury was not in the courtroom at the time of the shooting.


Now, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt regarding the prejudicial effect of the defendant being in handcuffs, if the jury wasn't in the courtroom as he was being escorted, why was he not in handcuffs? I have to believe he'd have a much more difficult time pulling something like this at the defendant's table, even if unshackled at that point, then being unshackled while being escorted into the courtroom. If the jury ain't in the room, there's no prejudice!!!

ummmm... I'd rather not :) but thank you!

Cam -

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/4275867/detail.html


Be sure to credit "Huck the Magnificent" if you use it on the air. ;)

How is this labeled as political correctness? This is just stupidity.

God forbid you handcuff a guy up for kidnapping and rape.

I have always thought that a defendant should be required to wear the clothing they were wearing when arrested. I love how they try to make thugs look like choir boys during trial.

As for this guy... any chance he was innocent of the rape? Just kidding. How stupid do you have to be... Post bond and you're free to go. No thank you, I'll just kill a few people and then leave. Maybe when they catch him they'll allow him free unshackled roam of the courthouse during his trial. I'd love to hear the defense's "not guilty" arguement...

Man, not a good time for me to be reporting for jury duty for the first time ever at the end of the month. What a horrible experience this must have been for anyone in the courthouse.

This was the actual trial, not first appearance or something like that. And this was the second trial actually, the first one ended in a mistrial (anyone have the details on that?). So he was sitting in jail the whole time. He was either denied bail or couldn't make it.

Just callin' it like I see it. Men are, by nature, stronger than women. Especially a man who has already demonstrated a likelihood that he was able to forcibly rape a woman. To leave such a person alone in a room, unrestrained, with only a female officer guarding him, is the height of irresponsible stupidity.

Update?

They catch him?

Although I don't do criminal law AT ALL, I wanted to address the idea expressed above that unshackling a defendant for trial is either a result of political correctness or just plain stupid. Where required, it may be prudent and/or necessary. But this is hardly a new thing, and the law is pretty well-settled on the general issue (this is taken from a Washington Supreme Court opinion I found on the issue):

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to appear at trial free
from shackles or other physical restraints, except in extraordinary
circumstances. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L.
Ed. 2d 353 (1970); Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1999);
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 842. This right is an essential component of a fair
and impartial criminal trial, guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 3, and
article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. Finch, 137
Wn.2d at 843. The Supreme Court has clearly stated "one accused of a crime
is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis
of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official
suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not
adduced as proof at trial." Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 98 S.
Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1978).

Requiring a defendant to appear at trial in physical restraints poses a
substantial risk of destroying the defendant's presumption of innocence,
"`a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.'"
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 844 (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96
S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1976)). Shackles unmistakably indicate the
court believes there is a "need to separate a defendant from the community
at large, creating an inherent danger that the jury may form the impression
that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy." Rhoden, 172 F.3d at 636
(citing Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S. Ct. 1340, 89 L. Ed.
2d 525 (1986)).


While the specific application of these general tenets likely differs from state-to-state and circuity-to-circuit, and there are exceptions to every rule, the basic issue is one of ensuring our Constitutional right to a fair trial. Perhaps the method by which this was achieved in Atlanta was faulty, but this isn't the result of "PC gone amok" or sheer stupidity. These issues were decided at the US Supreme Court level, decades ago.

A little more on the shackling issue:


In Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970), the Court recognized two additional "inherent disadvantages" to shackling a defendant at trial: physical restraints may not only cause jury prejudice and impair the presumption of innocence, they may also detract from the dignity and decorum of the proceeding and impede the defendant's ability to communicate with his counsel. Id. "The lower courts have observed two further weaknesses in imposing physical restraints: they may confuse and embarrass the defendant, thereby impairing his mental faculties; and they may cause him pain." Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing cases from other circuits), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 948 (1990).

With the exception of the presumption of innocence, these "inherent limitations" of shackling continue into the penalty stage of a trial. Because "there seems to be no reason to restrict the[se] principles to the guilt-innocence stage of trial," we conclude the constitutional rules regarding shackling at trial apply equally in the sentencing context. Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d at 1451.

.....


The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, "shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public's competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law." Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a "last resort." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

It is a denial of due process if a trial court orders a defendant shackled without first engaging in a two-step process. Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 147-48 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended by, 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1993). "First, the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 'that some measure [is] needed to maintain security of the courtroom.' " Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.) (quoting Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 720), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832 (1990). "Second, the court must 'pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.' " Id. (quoting Spain, 883 F.2d at 721). See also United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1401 (9th Cir. 1993).

Nope, still on the run. If you have CNN up there tune in. Nothin but this story all day long...

He's still on the run. At one point, it looked like they had him cornered (in the general area of the offices of VPI97, Buzzee, and SWMBO), but it appears that he wasn't in that area after all.

KSyrup--

Much thanks for the links. I had no idea the law was this developed in this area.

The article by Huckleberry touches on the issue, but it has actually been decided by the Supreme Court, and I don't think the case is all that recent--so I don't think it is a case of PC'ism run amok.

Nevermind, I see Ksyrup has beaten me to the punch.

No problem. I may be stupid about a lot of things, but when it comes to the law, I know...google. :D

And shackling!

Both are equally handy.

Throw in sheep and you've got something special there.

I should amend that, then.

They were lulled into a fatal slumber by the Supreme Court's politically correct definitions.

A law enforcement official (wasn't really paying attention to radio in background when this interview started) is being interviewed on the radio. He was just asked if anyone else was guarding the suspect. He said he didn't know, that the female deputy was still sedated and they haven't interviewed her yet. Then he was asked if any other deputies had come forward to say they were in the holding room. He said something to the effect of: "To my knowledge, no other deputies have indicated that they were in the room."'


EDIT: It is a news conference with the Deputy Chief Of Police for the City of Atlanta.

The APD Deputy Chief just said that the female deputy was not shot, but was injured in the scuffle with the suspect. I'd say the fact that she's in critical condition from the scuffle is a pretty likely indicator that she was in the room alone with him.

It was just called by police "an around-the-clock, nation-wide search" for Nichols.

Nation-wide??? We need to get Tommy Lee Jones on the case to tell us how long our fugitive has been on the run...

Ok. This can NOT be true. PLEASE tell me this isn't true.


Reporters are saying that this guy tried to smuggle a shank into the courtroom just two days ago.

Fox is reporting this now, and I heard this earlier.

It is quite possible they are confusing two different defendants. I have heard others close to the case say they had no indication the guy was a threat.

large rectum

How the fuck are you going to smuggle a freaking SHARK into a freaking courtroom???

It was just a dolphin.

(shank? don't completely follow here...I hear 'shank' and I think of a cut of pork or something.)

Maybe like a shiv .. isnt' that what they use in all those prison shows?

shank
(n) A custom made knife as used in prisons, made from whatever materials are available.

Got it...need to bone up on my prison terminology.

Dola - I did look it up, but didn't find that definition.

http://www.answers.com/shank&r=67

They're referring to it that way on the news here, actually. Of course, they use the term "crackhead," in this town, too. :p

It pains me to say this......but if they havent caught him by now....and he was right in their kitchen...........

Well, he can't run forever, given the amount of notoriety this case has gotten. However, he's now been on the run for 7+ hours...

Damn, I need to revisit my drug lingo as well.

Well if he was in my kitchen I'd beat him senseless with a lamb shank.

I hate to see anything like this happen, but wouldn't this have been a much better story if it had been Michael Jackson?

Police officers have surrounded an apartment in NW Atlanta, according to WSB-Radio.