DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws
and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution
guarantees that the government cannot take away a
person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property,
without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous
rulings about what this means in particular cases.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation
of liberty or property without due process of law.
A due process claim is cognizable only if there is
a recognized liberty or property interest at stake.
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).
Under certain circumstances, state prison regulations
may create a liberty interest that is protected under
the Due Process Clause. Kentucky Dep't of Corrections
v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 461 (1989). To do so, the
regulations must (1) contain `substantive predicates'
governing an official's decision regarding a matter
directly related to the individual; and (2) employ
`explicitly mandatory language' specifying the outcome
that must be reached upon a finding that the substantive
predicates have been met. Id at 462-63.
The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
see In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-74 (1948), guarantees
a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly
informed of the nature and cause of the charges against
him. In order to determine whether a defendant has
received constitutionally adequate notice, the court
looks first to the information. James v. Borg, 24
F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333
(1994). 'The principal purpose of the information
is to provide the defendant with a description of
the charges against him in sufficient detail to enable
him to prepare his defense.' Id.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation
of liberty or property without due process of law.
A due process claim is cognizable only if there is
a recognized liberty or property interest at stake.
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972).
It is clear that a court cannot, without violating
the Due Process Clause, compel an accused to wear
identifiable prison clothing during his trial. Estelle
v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976). This is because
the practice furthers no essential state interest,
and 'the constant reminder of the accused's condition
implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire
may affect a juror's judgment' and impair the presumption
of innocence, which is 'a basic component of a fair
trial under our system of criminal justice.' Id. at
503, 504-05.
Prison clothing cannot be considered inherently prejudicial
when the jury already knows, based upon other facts,
that the defendant has been deprived of his liberty.
See Estelle at 507 (recognizing that '[n]o prejudice
can result from seeing that which is already known');
U.S. v. Stewart, 20 F.3d 911, 916 (8th Cir.'94) (holding
that when circumstances permit shackling defendant
during trial, compelling defendant also to wear prison
clothing is not inherently prejudicial because his
condition as a prisoner is already apparent to the
jury); U.S. ex rel. Stahl v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 556,
556-57 (5th Cir.) (holding that, where defendant was
charged with murdering another prisoner while confined
in prison, no prejudice resulted from trying him in
jail clothes), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 971 (1973).
Due process is best defined in one word--fairness.
Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions,
statutes and case law have provided standards for
fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local
governments. These standards are known as due process.
When a person is treated unfairly by the government,
including the courts, he is said to have been deprived
of or denied due process.
Example: Ezra and Sharon married in New York and
had a son, Darwin. They divorced and Sharon moved
to California; Darwin stayed with Ezra. Darwin later
moved to California to live with Sharon; Sharon sued
Ezra for child support in California. Ezra claimed
that because he didn't live in California and had
never been to California it would be unfair (a denial
of due process) for him to defend the child support
lawsuit in California. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed,
saying that Sharon should bring her child support
request in New York. Kulko v. Superior Court, 436
U.S. 84 (1978).
