PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM HENRY WALKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V
No. 232035
Marquette Circuit Court
LC No. 99-36436-FH
WILLIAM HENRY WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J. and Hood and Sawyer, JJ.
HOOD, J., (dissenting in part)
I must respectfully dissent, as I agree with defendant that, under the circumstances, he
was denied a fair trial
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to allow the restraint of a defendant during
trial for an abuse of discretion under the totality of the circumstances. People v Dixon, 217 Mich
App 400, 404-405; 552 NW2d 663 (1996).
Freedom from shackling is an essential component of a fair trial. People v Williams, 173
Mich App 312, 314; 433 NW2d 356 (1988). Therefore, a defendant should not be shackled
during trial unless extraordinary circumstances demand it. People v Jankowski, 130 Mich App
143, 146; 342 NW2d 911 (1983). Extraordinary circumstances include preventing a defendant’s
escape, protecting courtroom observers from injury, and maintaining order during the
proceedings. People v Dunn, 446 Mich 409, 426; 521 NW2d 255 (1994); Williams, supra at
314.
The trial court here cited defendant’s history of assaultive behavior while in prison and
defendant’s security classification in support of its decision. In my opinion, defendant’s
collection of misconduct tickets – even coupled with his high security classification – did not
amount to “extraordinary circumstances” under which a defendant may rightfully be shackled
before a jury at trial. The evidence presented showed only that defendant conducted himself
poorly in prison; the evidence did not show that defendant presented an escape risk, or that he
represented a risk to the safety of anyone in attendance at trial, or that without shackles,
defendant was likely to disrupt the trial process. Where no compelling evidence exists to justify
a court’s decision to restrain a defendant at trial, the trial court has abused its discretion. People
v Baskin, 145 Mich App 526, 545-546; 378 NW2d 535 (1985); People v Johnson, 160 Mich App
-1-
490, 493-493; 408 NW2d 485 (1987). The situation here was also exacerbated when the trial
court, over defendant’s objection, allowed a corrections officer to be stationed between
defendant and the jury during defendant’s trial testimony, thereby inevitably heightening
defendant’s presentment as extremely dangerous.
In the instant case, the trial court’s abuse of discretion was not harmless error. As we
stated in Baskin :
This is a situation where actions speak louder than words. The mere
shackling of the defendant in this case impinged upon defendant’s credibility by
indicating that defendant was not to be trusted and prejudiced his right to a fair
trial. [Baskin, supra at 546.]
I would reverse.
/s/ Harold Hood
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.