Joseph Morgan v. Bernie Aispuro, Superintendent Attorney General of the State of California

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 12635·946 F.2d 1462·1991 WL 204466·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23714·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8252
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 15, 199190-56320California1,545 words

Opinion

Opinion

Beezer, J.

Joseph Morgan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his right to a fair trial was violated by the use of a security courtroom. The district court denied his petition. We have jurisdiction, hold that such a security measure is not inherently prejudicial and affirm.

I

Morgan was convicted in a California court of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. On the day the jury panel was to be sworn in, the state trial court announced its intention to try the case in a security courtroom. The security courtroom had a wire-reinforced glass partition and bars separating the spectator area from the court area.

Morgan’s counsel objected to the move and requested a continuance or stay to permit him to seek a writ from the California Court of Appeal. The state court judge denied the motions, but offered counsel the opportunity to have all proceedings take place in the security courtroom. Counsel refused this offer and the jury panel was sworn in and voir dire was begun in a non-security courtroom. The following day, jury selection continued in the non-security courtroom. After the afternoon recess, the proceedings were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.