By Morris A. Singer, Esq.; Kristyn M. Dusel, Esq.; C. Dick Clark, Esq.; and Leanne Cronin 15 April 2010
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Agenda • Context – Legal history – The effect on juveniles and families • Our work – Ending the summary practice of shackling – Current court practices
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Context • Legal history • The effect on juveniles and families
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Context: Legal History
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Context: The Effect on Juveniles and Families • Adolescence – Growth – Identity – Vulnerability – Right and wrong – Mental health issues • Effect • References
Shackling Policy Project Adolescence: Identity • Identity formation – Everything an adolescent thinks he knows is in flux; confusing – Identity formation a major task – Questioning
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Adolescence: Vulnerability • Vulnerability – Reliance on messages from family, friends, community, and society
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Adolescence: Right and Wrong • Right and wrong – New ways of looking at the ideas of “right” and “wrong”
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Adolescence: Mental Health Issues
• Mental health issues
– High incidence rate of mental health issues among juveniles involved in the criminal justice system.
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Effect • Interference with development of identity and morality • Conflicting messages about the court system • Trauma
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Effect • Interference with development of identity and morality – Struggle to accommodate image of criminality into their preexisting image of an innocent childhood – Potential to disrupt the natural process of moral development
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Effect • Conflicting messages about the court system – No longer “innocent until proven guilty” – Message that juvenile is criminal, dangerous, and cannot be trusted – Cognition of racism
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Effect • Trauma – Harmful emotions: shame and embarrassment – Re-traumatization or further exacerbation of symptoms of trauma in adolescents – Particular damage to individuals already battling symptoms related to mental health issues or past trauma. – Victims of physical or sexual abuse: experience might re-traumatize victimized juveniles by reminding them of the violence or abuse
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project References • American Bar Association, Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability (Jan. 2004), available at https://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf • Pamela Blewitt and Patricia C. Broderick, Adolescent Identity: Peers, Parents, Culture and the Counselor, 31.8 COUNSELING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1 (1999) • Anita Nabha, Note, Shuffling to Justice: Why Children Should Not Be Shackled in Court, 73 BROOK. L. REV. 1549 (2008). • Deborah Burdett Schiavone, The Effects of Exposure to Community Violence on Aspects of Adolescent Identity Development, 22 JOURNAL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRIC NURSING 99-105 (2009) • K.C. McLean and A.V. Breen, Processes and Content of Narrative Identity Development in Adolescence: Gender and wellbeing. 45 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 702 (2009) • K. STASSEN BERGER, THE DEVELOPING PERSON THROUGH THE LIFE SPAN 407-32 (5th ed. 2001)
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Our Work • Ending the summary practice of shackling • Current court practices
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Our Work: Ending the Summary Practice of Shackling • Early efforts • Informal channels
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Early Efforts: Goals • Make an assessment of current shackling practices. – Compile a list of courts, contact information, and decide how we are going to make the assessment for each court. • Determine current attitudes of court officers, judges, and attorneys about shackling juveniles. – Compile a list of juvenile attorneys; combine with list of courts – Contact parties and interview about shackling attitudes. • Research into constitutional implications of shackling. – Look at the case law across jurisdictions to see if the shackling issue has played out in any cases, and if so, what has been the result. • Partner with Bingham McCutchen on litigation
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Informal Channels • JJC Conference • Involvement with Blitzman, J.
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Our Work: Current Court Practices • Our new goals in light of our success • Methodology • Data • Future
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project New Goals • Determine how the policy was implemented in the courts • How – Observe courts practices – Identify what data to collect (checklist)
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Methodology • Scope – Two counties (Suffolk and Middlesex); plans to visit Norfolk County – Four courts (Boston, Dorchester, Cambridge, and Lowell); plans to visit Dedham and Quincy
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Methodology • Questions asked – Are shackles still used in violation of the new policy? How? – If a juvenile is taken into custody at the end of the hearing, are restraints applied in the courtroom? – Are the judge's filling out a form in cases to determine that a juvenile should be restrained? Details . . . . – Is the juvenile's attorney given a chance to respond? Are they? – What is the layout of the courthouse? Where is lock-up? Where are the juveniles brought in? – What has the response been from the court officers about this new policy? – Have new or other procedures been developed to deal with the new policy?
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Data • Boston • Dorchester • Cambridge • Lowell
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Data • Boston (Limon, J.) – Dates observed: periodically since the start date of the policy – Implementation not uniform – Juveniles are still shackled when brought in – Boston has the most favorable layout for the implementation of the policy, from a security standpoint
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Data • Dorchester (Harris, J.) – Date observed: March 9, 2010 – Policy has been implemented – Client held in custody unshackled prior to entering the courtroom for a suppression hearing
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Data • Cambridge (King, J. and Tyree, J.) – Date observed: April 6, 2010 – Policy has been implemented – Judges aware of form, but do not use it – Some use of the prisoner dock as an intermediate confinement measure – King, J. concerned that defense attorneys not objecting to determination of need for shackles – Layout of Cambridge court house requires that juveniles be brought through the public to one of the courtrooms – When it is determined that a juvenile will be taken into custody, court officer applies handcuffs in the courtroom – Court officers inform judges of their concerns about a juvenile to assist in the shackling determination – Court officer indicated that policy has not made job more difficult
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Data • Lowell (Blitzman, J., Flynn, J., and Donahue, J.) – Dates observed: ongoing since policy implemented – Policy has been implemented – Use of form – Juveniles never in the courtroom in shackles unless the judge makes determination of need – During recent jury trial, court officers waited to apply shackles until juvenile in hallway behind the courtroom – Policy has been fully implemented despite the fact that this courthouse has the poorest layout from a security standpoint
Juvenile Defenders Clinic
Shackling Policy Project Future • Collect data from more courts