The Texas Court of Appeals in El
Paso issued an astounding but much deserved opinion in a criminal case, Morris v Texas,_ SW3d _(Feb. 28, 2018). In that
case, a criminal defendant had been convicted of soliciting the sexual performance
of a child. Apparently before the criminal trial, the trial judge had decided
to make the defendant wear a stun belt. It appears that the defendant had also
previously filed a lawsuit against that judge and also against his defense
attorney.
During the course of the jury
trial, the criminal defendant and trial judge entered into several “heated exchanges”
where the defendant (not through his counsel) was objecting to the fact that he
had to wear a stun belt. He also pointed out that he had mental health issues
and that he was on 17 pills for his mental health disability and the use of the
stun belt would exacerbate his medical condition. In fact, the defendant
proclaimed “you’re torturing a MHMR client”. The judge did not like what the
criminal defendant was saying and on three separate occasions, each time out of
the presence of the jury, the trial judge ordered the bailiff to activate the
stun belt because the defendant was not “behaving”.
The defendant objected strongly
each time the judge administered the stun. Eventually the defendant was taken
out of the courtroom and he refused to come back even though the court offered
that he could rejoin the proceedings if he would behave himself.
The El Paso Court of Appeals
focused on the fact that the judge used the electrocution of the defendant to
control decorum in the courtroom (to make the defendant “behave”) and not for
any security or safety measure. Even though the trial judge stated after the
fact that he was concerned for the safety in the courtroom, the Court of
Appeals did not find that credible based on the judge's previous comments at
the preliminary examination and during the process of ordering the
electrocution three times during the trial. “Because the trial transcript clearly
shows that the trial judge, during a heated exchange with the defendant outside
the presence of the jury, ordered his bailiff to electrocute the defendant
three times with a stun belt—not for legitimate security purposes, but solely
as a show of the court’s power as the defendant asked the court to stop
“torturing” him—we harbor grave doubts as to whether Morris’ trial comported
with basic constitutional mandates. As such, we have no choice but to
overturn Morris’ conviction and remand for a new trial.”
While this case is astounding, what
perhaps is even more stunning, is that not one of the other judicial
officers in the courtroom said anything when the trial judge was ordering these
electrocutions to occur three separate times. The bailiff followed the
instructions without question. The prosecutor did not seem to have a problem
with it and remained silent. Most disappointingly, the defendant's own attorney
raised no objection at all to the electrocution of his client. If that wasn't
bad enough, the defense attorney’s comments to the jury during closing
arguments were even worse. The defense attorney stated in closing: “You might
not like me. You might hate Terry Morris. One of you asked why he was wearing
jail clothes. He can’t behave. He smarted off at the judge. That's why he’s not
in here. You might hate him. It’s a pretty despicable offense. But in the game
of balls and strikes, your oath that you all swore to was not the
consideration. Is the ball over the plate or not? . . . The evidence ought to
be pretty strong if it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the standard. You
may not like Terry Morris. I don’t like him. Kind of rude. Smells bad, you
know. Is he guilty of this? He might be. The question is not the answer to any
of those things.”
In addition to remaining silent
while the judge electrocuted his client, the defense attorney also threw his
client under the bus during closing.
Labels: constitutional violation, MHMR Client, Morris v Texas, Stun Belt, Texas Court of Appeals
