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STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED July 12, 2002 Plaintiff-Appellee, V No. 232035 Marquette Circuit Court LC No. 99-36436-FH WILLIAM HENRY WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.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.