A Bit More About the Shock Belt - Elizabeth Johnson Case

P.S. Twitter hasn't worked for me all day. If yours is working, feel free to tweet these shock belt posts for me!

Please visit the Bookstore tab above to browse

Pssst! Going to jail, buying documents, and everything else it takes to get this kind of info for the blog takes time and money! Every time you make a purchase here, it helps me be able to do more for you!

My, how the rumors do fly. The shock belt is commonly worn in Maricopa County (Arizona) courtrooms by defendants, which is why I was looking for it at the beginning of Elizabeth Johnson's Kidnapping trial. But it certainly can vary from case to case, which is why it was not a huge surprise that she was not wearing it.

To be very clear, though, the shock belt is operated by trained professionals from the jail staff, the guards who are charged with her security during the trial. The purpose of the belt is to control the inmate in the case of an attempt at escape or assault. It is never, ever used to "punish" an inmate for crying in court or smiling flirtatiously or coughing or anything else not related to an outright eruption of violence or flight. These are not, after all, the neck rings from the thrall episode of Star Trek, where nuances of behavior are controlled by remotely controlled pain devices.

Some belts give the guard the option of avoiding the pain altogether. If an inmate is hiding, the guard can activate an alarm that will shrill out from the the prisoner's waist rather than shock him. This could even be useful in a non-violent emergency, such as a power outage, an earthquake or other natural disaster. I was present in one trial, that of serial killer Dale Hausner, where such a power outage occurred. All went dark. Hausner actually called out his whereabouts so the guard's flashlight beam could find him (so helpful, that Dale **insert sarcasm emoticon here**).  Other inmates might be less ingratiating, and activating an alarm could be very useful.

I really can't answer for other states, but I can't imagine any American courtroom would permit a judge to hold the controls of an electronic shock belt. Judges, imperfectly or not, are supposed to stay impartial. They are there to protect the rights of the defendant more than any other thing. Our justice system is weighted in that direction. To turn the judge into an instrument of daily physical torture would turn the whole system on its head.  

The guards, who are charged with keeping everyone safe, including the inmate, are to use the shock belt only in the case of a direct physical threat. The guards have no role in the legal proceedings, such as whether or not Elizabeth Johnson, or any other defendant in custody, can be allowed to cry in front of a jury.

Defense attorneys are expected to constrain their clients courtroom behavior through advice and instruction. Lawyers can be admonished by judges to become more assertive with their clients if behavior fails to improve.  So the court has other ways of controlling defendant behavior. Physical force is left strictly to the security detail. 

Our courts can be very confusing and mysterious. I hope this little tidbit helps out some avid trial watchers who are trying to understand what is currently happening on the 6th floor of the new court tower in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. 

For more on the shock belt, please visit this post 


Missing court action? Why not spend the time sampling 17 authors with more amazing true stories?

 

This prisoner would have loved to have her shock belt removed...get to know her, for just 99 cents!

 

Elizabeth Johnson's Shock Belt - Or Not?

Please visit the Bookstore tab above to browse

Pssst! Going to jail, buying documents, and everything else it takes to get this kind of info for the blog takes time and money! Every time you make a purchase here, it helps me be able to do more for you!

An example of an "inmate control" shock belt -- can deliver 50,000 volts

Trial watchers focused on the #ElizabethJohnson #BabyGabriel case have wondered about the mention of a "shock belt" the defendant may or may not be wearing. I did some scouting around dusty little corners of downtown to find some answers for you.

I'd like to mention that when I first started attending the trial, I looked for signs of such a belt around Elizabeth Johnson's waist because I rather expected to see one. Under the bulky and shapeless jail stripes, though, it was hard to discern. When she started wearing civvies (after the jury appeared), I could see that she was not. 

Then a Minute Entry surfaced referencing her wearing or not wearing the belt. People (aka Twittles!) started asking about it.

As I could see for myself, the court had ordered that Elizabeth Johnson be allowed to attend court without the shock belt. 

What I discovered during the lunch break is the original Motion to Remove Defendant's Shock Belt filed by defense attorney Marc Victor. 

In this document, Victor states forcing her to wear the shock belt is "unnecessary, painful, and prejudicial."  He goes on to describe the device, "The shock belt has two metal pieces which dig into Ms. Johnson's back causing her a great deal of pain and discomfort." Using language that deftly distances himself from the veracity of the next statement, he writes: "Undersigned Counsel has been informed that Ms. Johnson suffers from scoliosis, an abnormal curving of the spine, which is irritated by the use of the shock belt."

He has another reason for having it removed: "...the shock belt is difficult to conceal and could prejudice the jury by allowing them to realize she is in custody." 

Victor offers the court the alternative of having the Sheriff's office increase the presence of guards. He describes her as "a small girl who could easily be contained in the event of an emergency."

Sample 17 crime writers...and help support the live tweeting you love!

What may not be visible to trial watchers using streaming video are the two guards, one near the defense table and one on the far side of the room behind the view of the camera, who are always present when she is. Other guards are also involved in her detail but they are less visible to those of us inside the courtroom. These guards rotate positions. Indeed, in a bit of jail guard humor, these guards have a running "bet" with their colleagues that if any of them end up in TV footage, that person has to bring donuts for the entire rest of the staff.  A too friendly TV camera can make a real dent in a guard's lunch budget!

In addition to the guards, Elizabeth Johnson is, in fact, wearing a restraining device. It is a leg brace, concealed under her slacks, that "prevents her from walking or running without releasing the brace at each step, effectively stopping any attempts at flight."

While Marc Victor successfully got her shock belt removed, from what we're seeing at court Elizabeth Johnson does have a history of attempting to look less threatening than she really is. We see that in the texts, the stories to police, the claims to the custody judge, and so on.  Just one day before the shock belt motion was filed, lawyers for the sheriff had to get Judge Kreamer to put in effect a permanent order that Elizabeth Johnson "be transported by any means necessary for trial."  

Will you do me a favor, my friends? Will you retweet this and/or link to it? This saves me so much time! Twittles often ask the same question and I hate for anyone to go unanswered but do find it impossible to respond to every tweet or message. Thanks for getting the word out for me!