You are here: / / Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons...

Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons Are Placed on the Record

The Third Department found the error harmless, but it noted that, even in a nonjury trial, the defendant should not be in shackles in the courtroom unless reasons for the restraint are put on the record:

Even in a nonjury trial, a defendant should not remain restrained in the courtroom unless the trial court sets forth particularized reasons for such restraint on the record … . People v Whitehead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05213, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

You might also like
Sentencing Court’s Reference to a Fine for Driving While Intoxicated as “Mandatory” Required Remittal for Resentencing
ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
Disability Pre-dated Work at World Trade Center—Worker Entitled to Workers’ Compensation
IN THIS SEX-OFFENSE CASE, THE SENTENCING JUDGE VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLACING THE REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE ON THE RECORD; THE ISSUE SURVIVED THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION TO TESTIFY OR TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE IN FRONT OF THE JURY (THIRD DEPT).
Court Could Not Promise a “Violent Felony Override” Allowing Defendant to Participate in Programs While Incarcerated—Only the DOCCS Can Determine Defendant’s Eligibility—Conviction by Guilty Plea Reversed
Children’s Hearsay Alleging Abuse by Father Was Not Corroborated; Change in Custody Should Not Have Been Granted
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement... Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional...