Illinois v. Allen

397 U.S. 337 (1970)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Allen (D) was convicted of armed robbery. Evidence showed that D entered a tavern in Illinois and, after ordering a drink, took $200 from the bartender at gunpoint. After his indictment and during the pretrial stage, D refused court-appointed counsel and indicated to the trial court on several occasions that he wished to conduct his own defense. The trial judge told him, `I'll let you be your own lawyer, but I'll ask court-appointed counsel to sit in and protect the record for you, insofar as possible. As jury selection was underway, D began examining the first juror and continued at great length. The trial judge interrupted D, requesting him to confine his questions solely to matters relating to the prospective juror's qualifications. D started to argue with the judge in a most abusive and disrespectful manner. At last, and seemingly in desperation, the judge asked appointed counsel to proceed with the examination of the jurors. D continued to talk, proclaiming that the appointed attorney was not going to act as his lawyer. D then said, 'When I go out for lunchtime, you're [the judge] going to be a corpse here.' At that point, he tore the file which his attorney had and threw the papers on the floor. The judge warned that if there was one more outbreak of that sort and D was going to be removed from the courtroom. D continued to talk back to the judge, saying, 'There's not going to be no trial, either. I'm going to sit here, and you're going to talk, and you can bring your shackles out and straight jacket and put them on me and tape my mouth, but it will do no good because there's not going to be no trial.' The judge ordered the trial to proceed in D's absence. D was removed from the courtroom. After D complained, the judge said that D would be permitted to remain in the courtroom if he 'behaved [himself] and [did] not interfere with the introduction of the case.' The jury was brought in and seated. Counsel for the petitioner then moved to exclude the witnesses from the courtroom. D then started in again. The judge ordered D removed from the courtroom. D mostly remained out of the courtroom during the presentation of the State's case-in-chief. After the prosecution's case, the trial judge reiterated his promise to D that he could return to the courtroom whenever he agreed to conduct himself properly. D gave assurances of proper conduct and was permitted to be present through the remainder of the trial. D was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals felt that D's Sixth Amendment right to be present at his own trial was so 'absolute' that, no matter how unruly or disruptive D's conduct might be, he could never be held to have lost that right so long as he continued to insist upon it, as D clearly did. It concluded that a trial judge could never expel a defendant from his own trial and that the judge's ultimate remedy was to bind and gag him. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.