De Bearn v. United States, 237 A.3d 105

On Oct. 31, 2018, Gaston De Béarn interrupted Mass at the Basilica crypt, intentionally toppled three custom bronze candlesticks (one shattered), and was arrested for destruction of property.
The Shrine proved damage to custom 1929 bronze candlesticks and $1,000 in labor costs to fix them; De Béarn admitted intentionally toppling them but disputed the extent of damage.
De Béarn was released subject to a court-ordered stay-away from the Shrine and a Shrine-issued barring order; he returned on Nov. 18 and Nov. 25, 2018, and was charged with two counts of contempt for violating the stay-away order.
De Béarn proceeded pro se at a bench trial (with standby counsel), was convicted of malicious destruction of property and two counts of contempt, acquitted of unlawful entry, and sentenced to probation, restitution, and fines.
Before trial the court initially unshackled him but later ordered his left hand shackled because only one U.S. Marshal was present and the Marshal required it; the court did not make an individualized, on-the-record security finding.
On appeal De Béarn challenged sufficiency of the destruction evidence, the legality of shackling without individualized findings (invoking Deck), and the validity of the stay-away order under RFRA; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for malicious destruction of property	De Béarn: damage was minor or preexisting; he toppled candlesticks "carefully" and lacked malice	Government: intentional tipping, foreseeability of damage, evidence of broken pieces and denting supported malice	Conviction upheld — reasonable factfinder could infer malice from intentional conduct and likelihood of damage
Shackling without individualized judicial finding	De Béarn: Deck requires court determination before visible restraints; court improperly deferred to Marshal	Government/court: court relied on Marshal rules; no record findings made	Court found error in delegating decision to Marshal but deemed error harmless — no prejudice to bench factfinding
RFRA challenge to stay-away order	De Béarn: ban on attending the Shrine substantially burdens his religious exercise (preferred place of worship)	Government: order limited to a single location; many alternative places to worship; no substantial burden shown	RFRA claim rejected — stay-away of one church not a substantial burden; contempt convictions stand
Validity of contempt convictions if order allegedly invalid	De Béarn: if order violates RFRA, contempt convictions should fail	Government: parties must comply with court orders until reversed; conviction proper despite alleged invalidity	Court held contempt convictions enforceable because orders must be obeyed until modified/reversed; affirmed

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible physical restraints require trial-court determination justified by case-specific state interest)
United States v. Mayes, 158 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 1998) (trial court must independently review facts justifying shackling rather than blindly deferring to Marshals)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (court must evaluate effects of courtroom procedures on defendant’s rights)
Harris v. United States, 125 A.3d 704 (D.C. 2015) (definition of malice for malicious-destruction statute)
Corbin v. United States, 120 A.3d 588 (D.C. 2015) (fact-finder may infer intent from natural and foreseeable consequences)
Jackson v. United States, 819 A.2d 963 (D.C. 2003) (credibility and weight of force/damage are for the fact-finder)
Baker v. United States, 891 A.2d 208 (D.C. 2006) (parties must comply with court orders until reversed or modified)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (definition of substantial burden on religious exercise)