## Facts

- Clayton Fountain, Thomas E. Silverstein, and Randy K. Gometz were federal inmates housed in the Control Unit at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.
- Fountain and Silverstein had prior murder convictions and were considered extraordinarily dangerous; prison staff used heightened security, including three-guard escorts and handcuffs when they left their cells.
- In October 1983, during an escort from the shower, Silverstein stopped at Gometz’s cell; guards observed the handcuffs being released and Gometz producing a concealed homemade knife (“shank”).
- Silverstein took the shank and repeatedly stabbed and killed Officer Clutts; Silverstein described the killing as personal revenge.
- Later the same day, Fountain obtained a weapon during an escort and killed Officer Hoffman in a separate incident.
- The district court convicted Fountain and Silverstein of first-degree murder and imposed long terms of years (rather than formal life sentences) and ordered restitution to the guards’ estates and to the Department of Labor.
- Gometz was convicted of aiding and abetting the murder of Officer Clutts based on his role in supplying the weapon and facilitating Silverstein’s use of it.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring the defendants to be shackled during trial violated due process or was an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the district court erred by denying Silverstein’s late request for a psychiatric examination.
3. Whether cross-examination about defendants’ prior murders was improper and so prejudicial as to require reversal.
4. Whether refusal to subpoena certain defense witnesses violated compulsory-process rights or was an abuse of discretion.
5. Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Gometz aided and abetted the murder of Officer Clutts, including knowledge of Silverstein’s intended use of the shank.
6. Whether the federal first-degree murder statute permitted a term-of-years sentence instead of mandatory life imprisonment.
7. Whether restitution was lawful where amounts depended on speculative projections, including future earnings.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, including the aiding-and-abetting conviction of Gometz.
- The court upheld the trial court’s security measures, including shackling, given the extreme risk posed by the defendants.
- The court found no reversible error in denying a late psychiatric exam request, permitting limited inquiry into prior crimes, or declining to subpoena marginal or cumulative defense witnesses.
- The court vacated the first-degree murder terms-of-years sentences and remanded for imposition of statutorily required life sentences.
- The court vacated or remanded the restitution orders for recalculation consistent with statutory limits, rejecting reliance on speculative future losses.

## Legal Principles

- Visible restraints at trial are generally disfavored, but a trial court may order shackling when justified by specific, exceptional security risks; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- A defendant is not entitled to a psychiatric examination absent a timely request and a sufficient showing that the examination is necessary; trial courts have discretion to deny late, unsupported requests that would delay proceedings.
- Cross-examination concerning prior crimes may be permitted within reasonable bounds for credibility and context; error warrants reversal only if prejudice is substantial in light of the record as a whole.
- Compulsory process does not require subpoenas for witnesses whose testimony is immaterial, cumulative, speculative, or of marginal relevance; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability may be proven through reasonable inferences from conduct and surrounding circumstances, including providing a weapon and facilitating its use with awareness of the likely criminal objective.
- Where a sentencing statute mandates life imprisonment for first-degree murder, a court may not substitute an extremely long term of years as an equivalent.
- Restitution must be grounded in actual, provable losses and may not be calculated based on speculative projections such as uncertain future earnings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the defendants’ murder convictions arising from two same-day killings of prison guards, but required resentencing because federal law mandated life imprisonment for first-degree murder and required restitution to be recalculated to avoid speculative components.


United States v. Fountain, 768 F.2d 790 (7th Cir. 1985)