my name's carl got him with the federal public and in los angeles the way i'd put the issue in this case your honour's is whether we're going to let our courts sink to the level of bringing wish i think i mean i think there isn't a remedy you can give these defendants your honor because the harm that's been done to these defendants has already done that of course gets into the issue of jurisdiction when we filed the appeal to the district court no when we made the motion to the magistrate court yes because of course if the magistrate court we are standing beside our clients and they were standing there in the chains and we were asking to have those chains removed the magi course said no and it said no and all of the i think that seventeen or so cases where we made the motion at that stage there could have been a remedy and there could have been relief at the stage of the pill to the district court now but i think and i think believe this is brief there as well i think we are positioned as the capable repartition at evading review exception applied there and our position as it applies here it is the classic case for that  abortion no i think there's that i think that's one example but frankly the cases there are more close to one point or three criminal procedure cases that i cite gerstein keep you very similar dealt with whether defendants were entitled to a probable cause determination before they could be held in custody sort of and they still preliminary part of the criminal process in the claflin the county of riverside whether they were entitled to that determination within forty eight hours since early stages of a criminal proceeding  we had if we could referee if we could bring cases ourselves as a federal public defender instead of just litigating cases where we're already appointed then that's i suppose the way we do it to make it clean and then there'd be no question about the analogy i suppose if you have a general policy you could also do it in some sort of class action but i frankly don't know i don't know whether a group could bring a class action that context perhaps maybe could maybe it couldn't but i know we can't and i know we believe this issue is very important and this was the context we sought to bring it in especially when you have the organ advocacy center and especially when we have basically have seventeen consolidated appeals here that really are the functional equi there about mood mr lack of jurisdiction or anything like that i'll mix of situation you know other district courts or another you know other areas in the united states in federal courts magistrate court so there are other rules like that i recall anyway so no i don't believe there is no record that in our district the central district california this was not a practice until very recently and of course that's to some extent a major part of our point that i don't think ar all that i see and there are two desperations from a united states marshal's office represented he makes two general surgeons and refers to one specific incident and that's it general search in that it's quote necessary to ensure the courtrooms are safe an d through my statement based on my experience that overnighting in a half years i had heard not seen but heard of three or four incidents and that i'd done a survey to which nineteen other of our deputies had responded that produced about two or three other examples so we're talking about maybe six or seven incidents over years and years and thousands and thousands of un chapel defended experiences that proper was never contradicted it any point in the proceedings it was a contradiction in argument would be and then there actually are the two or three cases that if yes in that context but no ninth circuit cases of course if you read the chaplain cases there is not there are multiple concerns that issue and two of them frankly are the sorts of concerns that i think concern us the most one of the decorum and dignity of the proceedings that included within that the dignity of the defendant are we going to have people shuffling around in chains like shades or slaves or chain gangs or people  locks and that's a big part of it second this is the cases dealing with in trial point to these concerns also also the the the effect it has on a defendant in terms of his ability to communicate with counsel the moralizing record right but i think it's different have to stand up there beside your lawyer and shuffle up to your lawyer in chains before the judge who's going to be doing you justice and i think the case is what's different about that in terms of impact i mean i'm trying to understand your argument i think because surely the lawyers aren't going to be influenced by and hopefully not the judges and that's what the case to say the cases are loath to find prejudice on the part of the judge is can it's hard for me to see that the lawyer representing the defendants are going to be influenced by the fact their clients are shackled i think you're out there fighting to get the tackles off but it seems like it would interfere with their function i think there's two or three things you're on  and these are things the cases put i think it's the decorum and dignity of the proceedings and i think that's an important consideration i think it has the moralizing effect on the defendant how do you quantify that how do i point something specific about prejudice  recognized is there is that a fact there's also what just just grin and referred to as the that respects for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law so it's hard alone in the second circuit in a non jury case complained about  experience of generalizations that we don't have in this case there are some cases your honor asked me about where i get the authority there are a lot of cases dealing with within the non story context i suspect because it's hard to get around a harmless error problem and maybe because people wonder about the movements issue that your honor raised initially with me maybe you don't get it before the courts of appeals very easily i'm not too concerned about movements because i can see if it's wrong to have them shackled before the magistrate judge  it's never going to get reviewed in time at least for me it seems like it's it's capable of repetition and ice and problem on the substance of the process it doesn't affect the jury and doesn't affect the determination of guilt and and there's nothing in the record before us that explains what the impact is functionally before the magistrate or i think that actually i think they should jury prejudice goes particular lawsuit this is not a classic case where we have a government against the defendant because we're trying to prosecute the defendant for his crimes that's really what we have here is the public defenders reaching out and representing a class of future events and really what it is and should be a civil matter there's a lot to what you're saying this is true that normally this kind of thing would be brought by some wealthy defendant to could muster a class action there's not a lot of money you know sure so the question is can the can anyone ever get it here that way and at least for me it seems that if the defenders raise that that we ought to address well you know i just need to point out sort of to me it the route they're reaching out kind of thing doesn't really move me off the merits of it what are the that the marshals dealt with the magistrate judges dealt with both collectively and individually and but having reached a decision at that level there are really no cases which state that there is some sort of due process right that says that that this is considered decision has been made by both the judges and the agency namely the united states marshal service that has  responsibility for these matters that they having reviewed all of these issues considered all record before the court and again this gets back to my earlier point that because we are representing kind of at an angle the real parties in interest obviously the u s attorney's office was marshals have sworn testimony in the record saying that if if the magistrate judges don't do this somebody is going to get hurt i'd be or something like that i'm interested in that but just the fact that the magistra judge is maton you know over coffee or beer or in a conference room decided we want to do this who cares well your honor the meetings they had were in response to the concerns of the united states civil case we don't have a full record but what we do have are the declarations that were put in by the by did you have when you denied an opportunity to put in information your honor but we but we did and we did put in information and that is in the record before this court and he both mentioned that there had been incidents involving defendants and that in his opinion in the opinion of the marshal service the procedures that they there's not a lot of this district is the only district in the country doing this with that be relevant i don't think so your honor because again there could be some district specific reasons why  determine that their satisfaction which defendants are going to be a safety risk and which ones are not they said that's not possible at that time that's certainly something specific to these particular hearings that graduated in that their flu restraint when they're being transported to the courtroom they are then and hang causes and late restraints while they were in the courtroom but then when they are addressing the court the they are only in the stating that in part because of funding issues and other issues there the marshal service is not at its full complement and therefore they're on last and he ideally would like what are the defendants wearing you know usually they're wearing their at that point they're wearing their street clothes what they were arrested usually what they're what they were arrested and they're wearing their street clothes at that point they can have weapons on correct  because they've been in custody right yes ron and now they're going from a facility to the court before they walk into the doors of the court room is there any kind of screening to make sure they haven't picked up a weapon out of the prison here i'm not sure what supplemental screening is court room specific for the inquest the defendant to sort of follow up points to the court's questions first of all i think many of the questions you were asking judge gould well enough the problem with having a general policy maybe one of the factors that could enter into a case pacific or defend that specific maybe i consider ration is things like well there's not enough marshals or law enforcement officers today or this defendant is particularly dangerous but this policy by the everyone this policy applies to lateline disabled social security defended who gets brought it was  back to a point judge schroeder that you made i think our position of course is you can't have a general policy through it it has to be defended specific but the very least if you're going to have a general policy i don't think it should be one that could or should be