|
|
| California High Court Frowns on Use of Stun Belts |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 08/26/2002 |
|
The state Supreme Court on Thursday rebuked county judges who require criminal defendants to wear electrical-shocking stun belts at their trials. ''Requiring an unwilling defendant to wear a stun belt during trial may ... impair a defendant's capacity to concentrate on the events of the trial'' and diminish defendants in the eyes of a jury, the court said. Stun belts, which are wrapped around the waist and concealed from the jury, can deliver an 8-second, 50,000-volt electrical shock if activated by a remote transmitter. The shock can immobilize a defendant and cause physical weakness for up to 45 minutes. The court said judges should consider other means, such as shackles or concealed handcuffs, while trying to safeguard a courtroom or prevent a defendant from fleeing. Stun belts, the court said, should be used only if a judge believes no other method is appropriate. It was the first time the high court addressed stun belt use in California's courtrooms. Previous decisions have upheld the use of shackles visible to the jury if a judge believes the security of the courtroom is in jeopardy or if the defendant is likely to flee. Thursday's ruling reversed the conviction of James A. Mar, who was sentenced five years ago to 26 years in prison under California's three strikes law for resisting an officer. He wore a stun belt in court out of fear he might try to escape. His attorney, Carlo Andreani, said the court's ruling means California's courtrooms will be ''dignified forums for the administration of justice.'' In a lone dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote that Mar did not prove that the stun belt hampered his testimony. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think