Texas Judge’s Electrocution of Defendant During Criminal Trial Was a Stunning Constitutional Violation
The Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso issued an astounding but much deserved opinion in a criminal case, Morris v Texas, _ SW3d _(Feb. 28, 2018). In that case, a criminal defendant had been convicted of soliciting the sexual performance of a child. Apparently before the criminal trial, the trial judge had decided to make the defendant wear a stun belt. It appears that the defendant had also previously filed a lawsuit against that judge and also against his defense attorney.
During the course of the jury trial, the criminal defendant and trial judge entered into several “heated exchanges” where the defendant (not through his counsel) was objecting to the fact that he had to wear a stun belt. He also pointed out that he had mental health issues and that he was on 17 pills for his mental health disability and the use of the stun belt would exacerbate his medical condition. In fact, the defendant proclaimed “you’re torturing a MHMR client”. The judge did not like what the criminal defendant was saying and on three separate occasions, each time out of the presence of the jury, the trial judge ordered the bailiff to activate the stun belt because the defendant was not “behaving”.
The defendant objected strongly each time the judge administered the stun. Eventually the defendant was taken out of the courtroom and he refused to come back even though the court offered that he could rejoin the proceedings if he would behave himself.
The El Paso Court of Appeals focused on the fact that the judge used the electrocution of the defendant to control decorum in the courtroom (to make the defendant “behave”) and not for any security or safety measure. Even though the trial judge stated after the fact that he was concerned for the safety in the courtroom, the Court of Appeals did not find that credible based on the judge's previous comments at the preliminary examination and during the process of ordering the electrocution three times during the trial. “Because the trial transcript clearly shows that the trial judge, during a heated exchange with the defendant outside the presence of the jury, ordered his bailiff to electrocute the defendant three times with a stun belt - not for legitimate security purposes, but solely as a show of the court’s power as the defendant asked the court to stop “torturing” him - we harbor grave doubts as to whether Morris’ trial comported with basic constitutional mandates. As such, we have no choice but to overturn Morris’ conviction and remand for a new trial.”
While this case is astounding, what perhaps is even more stunning, is that not one of the other judicial officers in the courtroom said anything when the trial judge was ordering these electrocutions to occur three separate times. The bailiff followed the instructions without question. The prosecutor did not seem to have a problem with it and remained silent. Most disappointingly, the defendant's own attorney raised no objection at all to the electrocution of his client. If that wasn't bad enough, the defense attorney’s comments to the jury during closing arguments were even worse. The defense attorney stated in closing: “You might not like me. You might hate Terry Morris. One of you asked why he was wearing jail clothes. He can’t behave. He smarted off at the judge. That's why he’s not in here. You might hate him. It’s a pretty despicable offense. But in the game of balls and strikes, your oath that you all swore to was not the consideration. Is the ball over the plate or not? . . . The evidence ought to be pretty strong if it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the standard. You may not like Terry Morris. I don’t like him. Kind of rude. Smells bad, you know. Is he guilty of this? He might be. The question is not the answer to any of those things.”
In addition to remaining silent while the judge electrocuted his client, the defense attorney also threw his client under the bus during closing.
