Cuffing Child Draws Reprimand

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council has publicly reprimanded a district court judge who had handcuffs placed on a defendant’s chiild

The Judicial Council finds two features of this conduct impermissible. First, the shackling of a spectator at a hearing who is not engaged in threatening or disorderly behavior exceeds the authority of a district judge. Second, creating a spectacle out of a minor child in the courtroom chills the desire of friends, family members, and members of the public to support loved ones at sentencing.

We first address the improper use of handcuffs. In directing the Deputy Marshal to handcuff Mr. Puente’s daughter and requiring her to stand in the jury box, Judge Benitez ordered her to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624-25 (1991) (explaining that “the mere grasping or application of physical force” is sufficient to constitute a seizure). In addition, even for criminal defendants lawfully before the court, our law has long recognized the use of shackles, including handcuffs, can intrude on an individual’s constitutional rights, Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 626 (2005), and degrade the “dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold,” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970). In criminal proceedings, due process does not permit the “routine use of visible shackles” absent an individualized determination that it is necessary to maintain safety. Deck, 544 U.S. at 626. This rule reflects the reality that shackles are both physically intrusive and strongly connotative of criminality. Id. at 630. The reasons for limiting the shackling of criminal defendants resound even louder against the shackling of other individuals present in the courtroom, particularly where there is no threat to order or safety.

In this case, Mr. Puente’s daughter was present in court for the purpose of supporting her father. Under these circumstances, Judge Benitez had no authority to order her to be physically restrained. Judge Benitez cites no persuasive legal authority in his written submissions to the Committee or in his written response to the Committee’s report to justify his actions. Further, the Judicial Council is not aware of any legal authority even arguably authorizing the handcuffing and detention of a spectator at a criminal hearing who has not engaged in any behavior that threatens the dignity and order of the proceedings. Given the physical and emotional impacts of shackling and the lack of any basis for handcuffing Mr. Puente’s daughter in these circumstances, we conclude that Judge Benitez acted in a manner that violated JC&D Rule 4 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Attitude

At no point during this investigative process has Judge Benitez accepted that his actions were ill-advised, improper, and damaging to the public’s trust in the judiciary. Judge Benitez has in fact placed blame on others, particularly the Federal Defenders, for his actions that day. Judge Benitez accuses the Federal Defenders of using the letter from Mr. Puente’s daughter “as leverage,” but criminal defendants are well within their rights to solicit and submit letters of support.

Judge Benitez has, at every point, maintained that he acted only with the best intentions toward Mr. Puente’s daughter and her father. But his good intentions do not excuse his conduct during the Puente Hearing, which displayed misguided and inappropriate methods that exceeded the authority vested in him. His actions not only harmed Mr. Puente’s daughter, but also impaired the public’s trust in the institution. Judge Benitez’s arguments for why his conduct was justified in the circumstances are not persuasive, and his suggestions that this Council’s finding of judicial misconduct is a result of public pressure are incorrect. On the contrary, reinforcing the public’s trust in the judiciary is within the scope of the Council’s duties.

The Judicial Council finds that Judge Benitez’s actions towards Mr. Puente’s daughter constitute abusive or harassing behavior in violation of JC&D Rule 4.

No misconduct was found in a second matter. (Mike Frisch)