Hi yes i am referring to the case but i don't really understand it based on our laws out there.
What is this link you sent me
The Supreme Court Held:
1. A defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, following the judge's warning that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in such a disruptive manner that his trial cannot proceed if he remains in the courtroom. He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect. Pp. 397 U. S. 342-343.
2. A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly. Pp. 397 U. S. 343-346.
Page 397 U. S. 338
3. On the facts of this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, respondent, through his disruptive behavior, having lost his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 397 U. S. 345-347.
413 F.2d 232, reversed.
Ok i didnt know some of those things about the case. I have a few more questions, not about this case. First off i want to ask, why would someone not be allowed in grand jury proceedings? Why do they have to be in secret? If i was on trial i would want to know everything going on. The other question is why are state legislatures immune from arrest? That is unfair to all the rest of us. Why should they get special privaledges when we cant have those? My third question is i know defendents arnt allowed in by law in grand jury proceedings, but if someone wanted to change that law could they try? Thirdly and lastly. Why is it when you ask the courts who gives them juristictions to rule cases that they cant answer? Those are the only other questions i have. I am going to school for criminal justice undergrad and i have never really understood this.
Oh wow. That is way to many questions and beyond the original question.Regretfully, I can't go through all these additional questions which are unrelated to the original question. Sorry. Please know that the Terms of Service of JustAnswer specify that each customer ask ONE Question in each question thread. I don't mind answering additional related questions or clarifying something on the same original question.But you have now just asked an additional 4 or 5 unrelated questions there.
k i will just ask it individually. thanks for your help
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).