Is it permissible for the judge to merely gag Kathy rather than have her removed from the courtroom because according to the set forth rule in State v. Lee the absence of a panacea for dealing with a disruptive defendant, the court further observed that at least three constitutionally acceptable avenues exist for dealing with a defiant defendant which includes: (1) Bind and gag him, thereby keeping him present, (2) cite him for contempt, and (3) take him out of the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly. The judge gagged Kathy so she would stop disrupting the trial while also allowing her to remain in the courtroom. However, in State v. Lee it also states that a defendant can lose his rights to be in trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues on acting disruptively. Despite the fact, Kathy was only gagged to restrain her from conducting in a disorderly manner and she was removed from restraints once she contained herself. …show more content…
Lee is that it allows the trial to persist without any further interruptions and it also gives the defendant a chance to return to the courtroom if behaviors are conducted. The cons are the defendant would feel like an unfair trial is provided and it would create a bad impression on the jurors which can cause them to become prejudice in making their decision. Some considerations are whether the defendant is behaving in a violent manner in the courtroom, which could result in shackling or handcuffing the defendant. If the defendant is being disruptive or disrespectful during court it could lead to being gagged or removed from the