Illinois v. Allen
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the removal of an unruly criminal defendant during his trial. In its decision, the court ruled that a trial judge may remove a stubbornly defiant defendant from the courtroom, following a warning from the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues. Additionally, the court outlined other remedies available to judges faced with such conduct.[1]
| Illinois v. Allen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 24, 1970 Decided March 31, 1970 | |
| Full case name | Illinois, petitioner v. William Allen, respondent |
| Docket no. | 606 |
| Citations | 397 U.S. 337 (more) |
| Questions presented | |
| May a defendant, by his own unruly conduct, forfeit his right to be present at trial? | |
| Holding | |
| 1. A stubbornly defiant criminal defendant may forfeit, by his conduct, the right to be present at his trial. 2. In response to a stubbornly defiant defendant, a judge may (1) bind and gag him, (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt, or (3) remove him from the courtroom. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Black, Burger, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Concur/dissent | Douglas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV | |
Background
On August 12, 1965, William Allen entered a bar in Illinois. After ordering a drink, he robbed a bartender of $200 (equivalent to $1720 in 2023 dollars) while Allen held him at gunpoint. Allen would later be convicted by an Illinois jury of armed robbery and was sentenced to serve 10 to 30 years in state prison.
During the trial, he was removed from the courtroom due to his repeated use of profane language directed at the trial judge. During the trial, the judge had warned Allen that continued interruptions would result in his removal from the courtroom. Allen's appointed counsel represented him while he was not allowed in the courtroom, which was primarily during the presentation of the state's case. Later, having assured the judge that he would reform his conduct, Allen was allowed to return to the courtroom while his attorneys presented the defense's case.
Following the affirmation of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Allen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, saying that his rights afforded to him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to confront adverse witnesses had been denied. The District Court declined to issue the writ. Later, the Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the right to be present at one's own trial is so absolute that no defendant, regardless of his conduct, can be held to have forfeited it so long as he insisted on it, as Allen had done.
Opinion of the Court
The court held that a defendant may lose his right to be present at his own trial if, following warnings from the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior persists, he nonetheless insists on conducting himself in a manner inconsistent with the continuance of the trial. The defendant may, however, reclaim his right to be present as soon as he pledges to conduct himself in a manner befitting a criminal courtroom.
Additionally, the court affirms that judges may use their own discretion when confronted with a stubbornly defiant defendant, saying that there are "at least three" constitutionally permissible remedies for a judge in dealing with such a defendant. The judge may:
- Bind and gag the defendant, thus keeping him present in the courtroom.
- Cite the defendant for criminal or civil contempt.
- Remove him from the courtroom until he pledges to reform his conduct.
The opinion affirmed the discretion exercised by the trial judge in the original case, and reversed the lower circuit court's opinion.
Notable invocations
During the Waukesha Christmas parade attack trial, Judge Jennifer Dorow repeatedly cited the Supreme Court's decision in Allen as her authority to remove the defendant from her courtroom, after she had warned him that this could happen. During this trial, the defendant was often disruptive, and at times belligerent, toward the judge and prosecution.
External Links
- Text of Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Library of Congress (slip opinion)