Commonwealth v. Esteras

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Boston Bar Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent-Appellant Walter Esteras

Commonwealth v. Esteras

Brief Details
Key Topics in the Brief

Briefs

Visible shackling during a civil commitment proceeding for a sexually dangerous person, absent a case-specific finding of necessity, violates federal and Massachusetts due process protections. Under Deck v. Missouri, visible restraints are inherently prejudicial and may be imposed only when justified by an essential state interest specific to the individual. The same principles apply with particular force to sexually dangerous person commitment proceedings because they involve a significant, potentially indefinite deprivation of liberty and require a jury to determine the very issue—dangerousness—that visible shackles may improperly suggest has already been resolved. Massachusetts law likewise requires careful protection of individual liberty and supports extending Deck’s case-specific requirement to these proceedings. Because Mr. Esteras remained visibly shackled before the jury without an individualized finding of necessity, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.

Author(s)

Daniel K. Gelb, Gelb & Gelb LLP, Beverly, MA; Michaela B. Dunn, Orr & Reno, P.A., Concord, NH

Explore keywords to find information

Featured Products