The California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Jackson isavailable in Adobe .pdf format.
"Court: Death penalty OK for man who wore stun belt," is the AP report by Paul Elias, via the Silicon Valley Mercury News.
The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the death penalty of a man forced to wear a stun belt during trial.
The court rejected the defendant's argument that his fear of being shocked deprived him of a fair trial.
The state high court in its 6-1 ruling concluded that even if it was a mistake to force Jonathan Keith Jackson to wear the belt, it was a harmless error that didn't affect the jury's decision.
And:
Justice Goodwin Liu dissented, writing that Jackson's demeanor during the penalty phase could have convinced jurors he was unfeeling and remorseless. Liu agreed to uphold Jackson's murder conviction.
The Los Angeles Times reports, "Death penalty upheld for man forced to wear 'stun belt' during trial," by Maura Dolan.
Justice Goodwin Liu, in a lengthy dissent, said Jackson should not have been forced to wear the belt during the penalty phase of the trial, when jurors may study a defendant’s demeanor as they weigh whether to recommend life in prison without parole or the death penalty.
The belt can activate accidentally and emit a debilitating shock, and Jackson had feared setting it off, according to the high court.
“Most people, with such a device strapped around the waist, would sit as still and impassively as they possibly could in order to avoid activating it. (I would hesitate to even sneeze.), ” Liu wrote.
"California Supreme Court upholds 2000 sentence of Mead Valley man," is by Richard K. DeAtley for the Riverside Press-Enterprise.
The court ruled 6-1 Monday to uphold the capital sentence imposed in 2000 on Jonathan Keith Jackson, now 40, with the majority stating his right to a fair trial was not hurt by wearing a stun belt while in court.
The belt delivers an immobilizing electric shock by remote control. In 2002, the high court limited its use to situations where no alternatives were available to control a potentially dangerous defendant in court. Jackson was a gang member who knew both victims when he and others went to rob them in June 1996.
The majority said there was no evidence in Jackson’s case that the jury ever saw the belt, and no evidence that the wearing of the belt affected the fairness of the trial or Jackson’s ability to make decisions or otherwise participate in his defense.
Earlier coverage from California begins at the link. Related posts are in the post-conviction review category index.
Comments