◆ SpookStack

“. 606—CONCUR 4 ILLINOIS v. ALLEN Of course, no action against an unruly defendant is permissible except after he has been fully and fairly informed that his conduct is wrong and intolerable, and warned of the possible consequences of continued mis- behavior. The record makes clear that respondent was so informed and warned in this case. Thus there can be no doubt that respondent, by persisting in his repre- hensible conduct, surrendered his right to be present at the trial. As the Court points out, several remedies are avail- able to the judge faced with a defendant bent on dis- rupting his trial. He can have him bound, shackled, ‘ and gagged; he can hold him in civil or criminal con- tempt; he can exclude him frem the trial and carry on in his absence. No doubt other methods can be devised. J join the Court’s opinion and agree that the Constitu- tion does not require or prohibit the adoption of any of these courses, The constitutional right to be present can be surrendered if it is abused for the purpose of frustrating the trial. Due process does not require the presence of the defendant if his presence means that there will be no orderly process at all. However, I also agree with the Court that these three methods are not equally acceptable. In particular, shackling and gagging a de- fendant is surely the least of them. It offends not only judicial dignity and decorum, but also that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the jaw. I would add only that when a defendant is excluded from his trial, the court should make reasonable efforts to enable him to communicate with his attorney and, if possible, to keep apprised of the progress of his trial. Once the court has removed the contumacious defendant, it is not weakness to mitigate the disadvantages of his expulsion as far as technologically possible in the CU CUINISLa Ces,