◆ SpookStack

7 ako 606—OPINION 6 ILLINOIS v. ALLIEN sumption against the loss of constitutional rights, John- son v. Zerbst, 304 U. 8, 458, 404 (1938), we explicitly hold today that a defendant ean lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that ha Woha aloGf hea + that he will be removed HU ne continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be earried on with him in the courtroom.” Once lost, the right to be present ean, of course, be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings, It is essential to the proper administration of crim- inal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the hall- marks of all court proceedings in our country. The flagrant disregard in the courtroom of elementary stand- ards of proper ‘conduct should not and cannot be toler- ated. We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the cireumstances of each case. No one formula for maintaining the appro- priate courtroom atmosphere will be best in all situa- tions. We think there are at Jeast three constitutionally perinissible ways for a trial judge to handle an obstrep- erous defendant like Allen: (1) bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present: (2) cite him for contempt; (3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly. Trying a defendant for a crime while he sits bound and gagged before the judge and jury would to an extent *See Murray, The Power ta Expel a Criminal Defendant From Mis Own Trial: A Comparative View, 36 U. Cotu. L, lev, 171, 171-175 (1964); Goldin, Presenee of phe Defendant at Nendition of the Verdict in Felony Cases, 16 Col. L. Rev. 18, 18-31 (1916). 7