G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2004–2018 ·
…a defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so
at p. 935
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…the prosecutor twice gave cautionary instructions to the grand jury, which dispelled any prejudice that may have resulted
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gaston
In the alternative[*2], we find that Supreme Court sufficiently particularized the reasons for shackling includingserious concerns about the potential for fighting between defendant and his codefendants in the courtroom ( see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gaston
In the alternative[*2], we find that Supreme Court sufficiently particularized the reasons for shackling includingserious concerns about the potential for fighting between defendant and his codefendants in the courtroom ( see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Diaz
It is well-settled that, as a matter of federal and state [*5]constitutional law, "a defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so" ( People v Rouse , 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; see People v Best , 19 NY3d 739, 743 [2012]; People v Clyde , 18 NY3d 145, 152 [2011], cert denied 566 US 944 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that there was a reasonable basis articulated on the record to justify County Court’s determination to have him handcuffed when he testified before the grand jury (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; People v Jacobs, 298 AD2d 954, 955 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 559 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thompson
Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that there was a reasonable basis articulated on the record to justify County Court’s determination to have him handcuffed when he testified before the grand jury (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; People v Jacobs, 298 AD2d 954, 955 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 559 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harvey
We conclude that the court’s articulated concern with the level of security in the courtroom and courtroom decorum, based on defendant’s prior conduct, justified the court’s decision to keep defendant shackled during trial (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harvey
We conclude that the court’s articulated concern with the level of security in the courtroom and courtroom decorum, based on defendant’s prior conduct, justified the court’s decision to keep defendant shackled during trial (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Cruz
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was a sufficiently “reasonable basis, articulated on the record” for the defendant’s legs to be shackled during the trial (People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; see People v Robinson, 64 AD3d 803 [2009]; People v Rush, 44 AD3d 799, 800 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Clyde
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In appeal No. 1, the majority correctly concludes that the court erred in failing to articulate on the record a reasonable basis for its determination that shackles were warranted (see People v Buchanan, 13 NY3d 1, 4 [2009]; People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Brunson
To be sure, “a defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so” (People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; see People v Buchanan, 13 NY3d 1, 4 [2009]; People v Robinson, 64 AD3d 803, 803-804 [2009]; People v Rush, 44 AD3d 799, 800 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1009 [2007]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Robinson
The record justifies County Court’s refusal to order defendant’s restraints removed (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; People v Mendola, 2 NY2d 270, 277 [1957]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Robinson
It is clear that “a defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so” (People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; see People v Jenner, 39 AD3d 1083, 1087 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 845 [2007]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Buchanan
(2×)
We reject the contention of defendant that reversal of the judgment is required on the ground that the court failed to articulate a justifiable basis for requiring him to wear the stun belt (see generally People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rush
Adso contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was a “reasonable basis, articulated on the record” for the defendant’s legs to be shackled during the trial (People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; see People v Mendola, 2 NY2d 270, 277 [1957]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jenner
Defendants should not be physically restrained in front of the jury unless a reasonable basis for such restraint is articulated on the record (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]; People v Mendola, 2 NY2d 270, 275-276 [1957]; People v Allaway, 13 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lowmack
The record establishes that the court stated that the basis for its decision was to ensure the safety of the persons in the courtroom inasmuch as defendant had been involved in an altercation with deputies at the jail during the previous day (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Allaway
(2×)
It is well settled that “a defendant may not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable basis, articulated on the record, for doing so” (People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ortega
The court’s articulated concern with the level of security in the courtroom, based on defendant’s prior conduct, was sufficient to justify shackling defendant (see People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gilmore
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Jefferson County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.34 [1]), defendant contends that the indictment must be dismissed because he was required to appear before the grand jury in shackles and manacles des…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Freeman
Notably, County Court attempted “to minimize the possibility of prejudice” by offering to instruct the jury to disregard the restraints (see, People v Rouse, supra, at 935), and defendant declined.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Paul
Memorandum: "The shackling of a defendant in the presence of the jury is inherently prejudicial and constitutes reversible error unless a reasonable basis therefor is in the record or it is clear that the jury was not prejudiced thereby” (People v Vigliotti, 203 AD2d 898 ; see, People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 ; People v Sykes, 224 AD2d 986 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jones
However, as he neither objected nor requested curative instructions, this contention is unpreserved (see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163, 1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]; People v Fields, 262 AD2d 793 , 794- 795 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1017 [1999]; see also People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Jones
However, as he neither objected nor requested curative instructions, this contention is unpreserved (see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163, 1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]; People v Fields, 262 AD2d 793 , 794- 795 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1017 [1999]; see also People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934, 935 [1992]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York Ex Rel. Will Washington, Appellant,
v.
Sally B. Johnson, as Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, Et Al., Respondents
v.
Sally B. Johnson, as Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, Et Al., Respondents
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
Motion to vacate this Court’s January 15, 1992 rule 500.9 (b) (Rules of Court of Appeals, 22 NYCRR 500.9 [b]) order of dismissal granted. [See, 79 NY2d 852.]