prisoner before bar in Alabama

2017Moreover, in McWhorter v. State , 142 So.3d 1195 , 1263 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), we stated: "In Alabama, it has consistently been held that " ' "[b]ringing a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial." Brock v. State , 555 So.2d 285 , 288 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), on return to remand , 580 So.2d 1390 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).

2011In Alabama, it has consistently been held that “ ‘[bjringing a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial.’ Brock v. State, 555 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), on return to remand, 580 So.2d 1390 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).

2011Shackling tends not only to undermine the defendant’s presumption of innocence, but ‘is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.’ Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970). “99. ‘All of the authorities we have studied are agreed that to bring a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial, for it creates in the minds of the jury a prejudice which will likely deter them from deciding the prisoner’s fate impa

1991However, in light of the fact that few jurors polled stated that they saw the appellant in handcuffs, and that those that did stated that it would not prejudice them against the appellant, there was no error. "`All of the authorities we have studied are agreed that to bring a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial, for it creates in the minds of the jury a prejudice which will likely deter them from deciding the prisoner's fate impartially....' "Not to be overlooked, is the distinctio

1989Taylor v. State , 372 So.2d 387 , 389 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); McCoy v. State , 503 So.2d 371 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1987). *Page 289 Though the facts in the present case do not explicitly indicate a fear by the court that the defendant would attempt to escape, it is not reversible error for a trial court to allow a defendant to be brought into the courtroom handcuffed.

1987All of the authorities we have studied are agreed that to bring a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial, for it creates in the minds of the jury a prejudice which will likely deter them from deciding the prisoner’s fate impartially....’ “Not to be overlooked, however, is the distinction made in Clark [v. State, 280 Ala. 493, 496 , 195 So.2d 786, 788 (1967) ] between handcuffing a prisoner in taking him to and from the court and in keeping him in handcuffs while he is being tried, unl

2011Shackling tends not only to undermine the defendant’s presumption of innocence, but ‘is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold.’ Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970). “99. ‘All of the authorities we have studied are agreed that to bring a prisoner before the bar of justice in handcuffs or shackles, where there is no pretense of necessity, is inconsistent with our notion of a fair trial, for it creates in the minds of the jury a prejudice which will likely deter them from deciding the prisoner’s fate impa