◆ SpookStack

606—OPINION ILLINOIS v. ALLEN 7 comply with that part of the Sixth Amendment's pur- poses that accords the defendant an opportunity to con- front the witnesses at the trial. But even to contem- plate such a technique, much less see it, arouses a feeling that no person should be tried while shackled and gagged except asa last resort. Not only is it possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the jury’s feelings about the defendant, but the use of this technique is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold. Moreover, one of the de- fendant’s primary advantages of being present at the trial, his ability to communicate with his counsel, is greatly reduced when the defendant is in a condition of total physical restraint. It is in part because of these in- herent disadvantages and finutations in this method of dealing with disorderly defendants that we decline to hold with the Court of Appeals that a defendant cannot . ‘ ‘ . vrvler any nniecthle sireiinctansssd he donri voc af hic Ut GLY PARC LAP OLG LS RR MAL Pa a add? right to be present at trial, However, in some situa- tions which we need not attempt to foresee, binding and gagging might possibly be the fairest’ and imost reason- able way to handle a defendant who acts as Allen did here. II In a footnote the Court of Appeals suggested the pos- sible availability of contempt of court as a remedy to make Allen behave in his robbery trial. and it is true that citing or threatening to cite a contumacious de- fendant for criminal contempt might in itself be suffi- cient to make a defendant stop interrupting a trial. Tf so, the problem would be solved easily, and the defendant could remain in the courtroom, Of course, if the de- fendant is determined to prevent any trial. then a court in attempting te try the defendant fer contempt is still confronted with the identical dilemma that the