2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-27-2009 

# U SA v . B r antley P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3575

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B r antley " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 774. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/774NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

______________ N o. 07- 3575

______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR K B RA NT L E Y, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A ppeal fr om a C onvi ct i on and Sent ence in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey

D . N . J . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00669 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M . C avana ugh

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1

Sept ember11, 2008 B e f o re : M c K e e , S m ith a n d W e is , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t27, 2009) G eor ge S. L eone, E s q. J ohn F. R amono, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U . S. A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet R oom 700 N ew ark, N ew J er s ey07102- 0000 C ouns el fort he A ppel l ee2

Pet erM . C ar t er , E s q. O ffi ce of t he Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 972 B r oad St r eet 4 F lo o r th N ew ark, N ew J er s ey07102- 0000 C ouns el fort he A ppel l ant

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge , M ark B ran tl eyap p ea ls his co n v ict ion an d the s en tenc e tha t w as im p o sed af ter a j ur yfound hi m gui l t yof unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya fe l on. A s w e s hal l expl ai n, al t hough w e have conce r ns aboutt he tr i al pr ocee di ngs , the r ecor d does nots uppor tany re lie f , a n d w e m u s t th e re f

o re a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . Backg r ound B ra n tleyw a s a rre ste d o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 5 in N e w B ru n sw ick , N e w Je rse yf o r b e in g in a loc ati o n that w as o ff

-l im it s to h im u n d er a “D rug O ff en d er R estraining O rde r” ( “D O R O ”) t hata N ew J er s eycour thad ent er ed aga i ns thi m the pr evi ous m ont h pur s uant t o N ew J er s ey ’ s D rug O ffe nderR es t r ai ni ng O r derA ct( “D O R O A ct ”) , N . J . St at . A nn. §§ 2C : 35- 5. 4 et

s eq . T he arr es toccurr ed af

t erPol i ce Li eut enantPaul Schus t erobs erved B r ant l ey “w al ki ng i nt o t he ar ea of L ee A ve. and H andySt . ” Si nce Schus t erknew thatB r ant l ey w as w el l w i t hi n t he ar ea pr ohi bi t ed bythe D O R O , he di r ect ed D et ect i ves C hr i s t opher P lo w u c h a a n d R o n o ld yM a rtin e z to a rre st B ra n tleyf o r v io latin g th e D O R O . W h ile arr es t i ng hi m , D et ect i ve M ar t i nez ha ndcuff ed B r ant l eyand then conduc t ed a l i m i t ed “pa t d o w n ” s e a rc h o f

h is o u te r c lo th in g f

o r “ a n ytyp e o f

c o n tr a b a n d .”3

D et ect i ve M ar t i nez de ci ded nott o s ear ch B r ant l eym or e thor oughl yatthe t i m e of th e a rre st b e c a u se a c ro w d h a d g a th e re d a c ro ss th e stre e t. R a th e r, th e D e tec tiv e th o u g h t it bes tt o qui ckl yr emove B r ant l eyfr om the s cene and do a mor e compl et e s ear ch atthe pol i ce s t at i on. A ft erB r ant l eyw as t aken t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, pol i ce di s cover ed thathe w as c arry ing a h an d g u n , an d h e w as c h arg ed w ith b eing a f elon in p o sses sion o f a firearm in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d (2). B efor e the ens ui ng t r i al , B r ant l eyfi l ed a pr etr i al m ot i on r eques t i ng an “i nnocent p o s s e s s io n ” ju ry in s tru c tio n . T h e ju d g e re s e rv e d d e c is io n o n th e m o tio n . F o r re a so n s th a t ar e n o t at a ll ap p a re n t o n th is re c o rd , B ra n tleyw a s b ro u g h t in to t he court r oom forhi s t r i al w i t h s hackl es on hi s ankl es . T he r ecor d does notr evea l w ho m ade the i ni t i al deci s i on t o s hackl e B r ant l ey , how thatdeci s i on w as m ade, orw hyi tw as m ade. H ow ever , t he A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt orneyr ai s ed the i s s ue of s hackl i ng dur i ng the tri al, ap p are n tl yin an ef fo rtto cre ate a rec o rd th at w o u ld su p p o rtthe re str aint. In re s p o n s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d th a t B ra n tle yp o s e d n o a p p a re n t s e c u ri ty th re a t. H ow ever , t he j udge expl ai ned, he neve r“s econd- gues s ed” the j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal s Ser vi ce, w ho ens ur e the s afe t yof the court hous e, and B r ant l eyr emai ned s hackl ed. B efor e B r ant l eyt ook t he s t and t o t es t i fyi n hi s ow n defe ns e, defe ns e couns el o b jected to B ran tl eyb eing sh ac k led d u ri n g h is t esti m o n y . T h e d istri ct co u rtstat ed : “I’m g o in g to m a k e th is v e ry si m p le : I le a v e th a t u p to th e M a rs h a ls . T h e ya re th e f ir s t lin e . . . a n d if th e yw a n t th o se sh a c k les to sta yo n , the yw ill sta yo n .” H o w e v e r, th e D e p u ty M ar s hal i n t he court r oom di d notaff i r m the nec es s i t yforthe r es t r ai nt s . I ns t ead, he s t at ed t hathe w oul d have t o “def ert o [ sic ] a s upervi s orbefor e [they ] coul d m ake thatdeci s i on. ” T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notal l ow t he D eputyt o cons ul ta s upervi s or , and i ns t ead rul ed that B r ant l eys uffe r ed “no unf ai rpr ej udi ce” bybei ng s hackl ed. B r ant l eyw as , thus , s hackl edIn an ef fort to pre vent the jury

from see ing B rantley

in shackles, the district c ourt arrang ed 1 for him to be taken to and from the w itness boxin the jury ’s absence. The cour t also ordered two Marshals to stand near B rantley so that the jury

could not see B rantley ’s leg s or ankles a s they entered the jury

box . Brantley

objected to both the sha ckles a nd the ar rang ement with the Marshals, arguing that the shackle s and the Mar shals’ proximi ty sug g ested that hewas i n c arc e r at e d . T he j udge r es ponded, “M r . B r ant l ey , y ou goty our s el f i nt o t hattr oubl e, not m e. . . . Y o u h av e e x ac tl yw h at y o u sh o u ld h av e o n u n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s. T h ey ’re notcomi ng off. ” T he court ’ s r es pons e i s as perpl exi ng as i ti s confus i ng as the j udge had hi m s el f ea r l i er c o n f irm e d th a t B ra n tley ’s b e h a v io r a n d d e m e a n o r in th e c o u rtro o m h a d b e e n p e rf e c tly a p p ro p ri a te . 4 f o r th e d u ra tio n o f

th e trial. 1 B r ant l eyadmi t t ed t o pos s es s i ng the gun, butt es t i fi ed thathe w as heade d t o t he p o lice d e p a rtm e n t to su rre n d e r th e g u n w h e n h e w a s a rre ste d . H e e x p lain e d th a t h e d id noti m m edi at el ytur n overt he gun bec aus e he w as conce r ned thatthe pol i ce mi ght overr eac t“i n t he cha os of the arr es t . ” A tthe s t at i on, B r ant l eyal l egedl yt ol d D et ect i ve Pl ow ucha thathe w ant ed t o “l aw ful l ys urr endera handgun t o t he N ew B runs w i ck pol i ce d ep artm en t. ” A cc o rdin g to B ran tl ey , P low u ch a “ w as sh o ck ed ” a n d ask ed B ran tl eyw h ere t he gun w as l ocat ed. B r ant l eyt hen l i ft ed the bac k of hi s coatand expos ed the handl e of th e g u n th a t w a s tu c k e d in to h is w a is tb a n d . A s not ed att he out s et , t he j uryconvi ct ed B r ant l eyof bei ng a fe l on i n i l l egal pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm , and the di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed t o gi ve the r eques t ed “i nnocent pos s es s i on” i ns t ruct i on. I tdi d s o beca us e: 1) the courtbel i eved thatappl i cat i on of the i nnocentpos s es s i on defe ns e t o t he cha r ge of f el on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm underm i ned t he congr es s i onal i nt entof kee pi ng guns outof the hands of fe l ons thati s r efl ect ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ; 2) t he doctr i ne has notbeen a cce pt ed i n t hi s j ur i s di ct i on; and 3) B r ant l ey ’ s ow n t es t i m onynegat ed the fa ctual pr edi cat e forthe def ens e bec aus e B r ant l ey conce ded thathe made no eff or tt o s urr enderthe gun w hen he w as fi r s tappr oache d byt he pol i ce.T h e s ta tu te , h o w e v e r, s e ts a m a x im u m te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

1 2 0 m o n th s . 2 5 T he Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed a gui del i nes r ange of 120 t o 150 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, and r ecomm ended thatB r ant l eynotr ece i ve a tw o- l evel 2 dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . B r ant l eyar gued thathi s s ent ence s houl d be r educe d beca us e of hi s t r oubl ed upbr i ngi ng, hi s drug addi ct i on, hi s pos i t i ve and cons i s t entr el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s w i fe a nd chi l dr en, and bec aus e he w as al r eadys ervi ng a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the tw o- l evel adj us t m entfor a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyb e c a u se B ra n tleyh a d n o t “tru th f u llya d m itt e d to h is conduct . ” The cour tal s o r ej ect ed B r ant l ey ’ s ar gum ent s forl eni encyand i m pos ed the m a x im u m s e n te n c e . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . I I . B rant l ey W as N ot E nt i t l ed t o an “Innocent P os s es s i on” C harge B r ant l eyfi r s tar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notgi vi ng an “i nnocent pos s es s i on” cha r ge t o t he j ur ybeca us e he t ook pos s es s i on of the fi r earm onl ys o t hathe c o u ld d e liv e r i t to p o lic e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mas on , 233 F. 3d 619, 623 ( D . C . C i r . 2000) ( r ecogni zi ng an i nnocentpos s es s i on defe ns e t o a s ect i on 922( g) ( 1) char ge and not i ng t hat C ongr es s coul d nothave i nt ended the “a bs ur d” r es ul tof perm i t t i ng a convi ct i on bas ed on m er e know i ng pos s es s i on) . B r ant l eyar gues thatthe tr ans i t oryand i nnocentpos s es s i on of a fi r earm i s a def

ens e t o 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , and thatthe i ns t ruct i on w as j us t i fi ed by th e e v id e n c e . A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 8 -3 1 . W e r evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s r efus al t o gi ve a s peci fi c j urychar ge forabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 6 3 4 , 6 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s the d istri ct co u rt re c o g n ize d , this c o u rt h a s n o t ru led o n th e v iab ili tyo f th e in n o c e n t p o ss e ss io n d e f e n se in t he cont extof a s ect i on 922( g) ( 1) char ge. T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatthe cha r ge w as n o t w arran ted b ythe e v iden ce b ec au se B ran tl eyh ad sev era l op p o rtu n it ies t o inf o rm p o lic e th a t h e w a s c a rr y in g a g u n b e f o re th e yd is c o v e re d it. W e a g re e .6

E ven i f w e ac ceptB r ant l ey ’ s t es t i m onythathe vol unt ar i l ydi s cl os ed the gun and s ur r ender ed i tatt he pol i ce s t at i on, i ti s notdi s put ed thathe w as s t opped on the s t r eetby pol i ce, s ear ched, and then dr i ven t o t he pol i ce s t at i on befor e he s ai d anyt hi ng about havi ng a gun. H e admi t s t hathe di d noti nform pol i ce thathe had a gun atanypoi nt befor e r eac hi ng t he s t at i on. B r ant l eyther efor e conc eded thathe pos s es s ed the gun l onger th a n n e c e ss a ryto su rre n d e r it. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . W

h ite , 5 5 2 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 9 (2d C ir . 2009) ( decl i ni ng t o deci de “w hethert o r ecogni ze a n i nnocentpos s es s i on i n t he s ect i on 922( g) ( 1) cont ext , ” butrul i ng t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o char ge the j ur yon t he def ens e w her e def

endant“fa i l ed t o adduce s uffi ci entevi dence th a t h e p o ss e ss e d th e sh o tg u n o n lyf o r a s lo n g a s n e c e ss a ryto v iti a te a p o ten tial th re a t” to a thi r d par t y ) . T hus , even a s s um i ng ar guendo that i nn ocen tpo sses si on i s a vi able defense t o a s ect i on 922( g) ( 1) char ge and a cce pt i ng B r ant l ey ’ s t es t i m ony , w e ca nnotconcl ude th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re f u sin g to g iv e th e re q u e ste d c h a rg e o n th is re c o rd . I I I . Th e Ar r e s t i n g Of f i c e r s P r o p e r l y Re l i e d o n t h e DORO B r ant l eynextcl ai m s t hatt he s t atut e author i zi ng the D O R O thatw as i m pos ed on hi m and thatw as t he bas i s of hi s arr es tdeni ed hi m s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s of l aw by undul yr es t r i ct i ng hi s m ovement . T he D O R O A ctauthor i zes a court , upon appl i cat i on of a law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r o r p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e yu n d e r sp e c if ied c irc u m sta n c e s, to p ro h ib it ce rta in p e rso n s f ro m e n ter in g a n a re a w h e re th e o f f e n se “ o c c u rre d o r is a lleg e d to have oc curr ed ori s aff

ect ed byt he cr i m i nal offe ns e w i t h w hi ch the per s on i s char ged. ” N . J. S tat . A n n . § 2 C :35 -5.7(a ) r ef er enci ngN .J . S ta t. A n n . § 2 C :3 5 -5 .6 . B ra n tleyd o e s n o t d isp u te th a t th e D O R O w a s is su e d b ya ju d g e , b a se d o n p ro b a b le caus e, and pur s uantt o t he s t atut e. A s the governm entcorr ect l ynot es , pol i ce of fi cer s m ay i n good fai t h r el yon t he val i di t yand cons t i tut i onal i t yof l aw s pas s ed bythe l egi s l atur e, w i t h t he “pos s i bl e exc ept i on” of l aw s “s o gr os s l yand fl agr ant l yuncons t i tut i onal thatanyB r ant l eyal s o cont ends t hatt he D O R O w as i s s ued i n vi ol at i on of hi s pr ocedur al due 3 pr oces s r i ght s beca us e he w as nevergi ven a meani ngful oppor tuni t yt o pr es entevi dence t o chal l enge a nyper cei ved nec es s i tyof i s s ui ng the r es t r ai ni ng or der , and thathe w as not re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l w h e n th e D O R O w a s is su e d . H o w e v e r, B ra n tleyh a s f a iled to d ev elop this argu m en t. H e o ff ers n o thing m o re tha n tw o u n su p p o rt ed an d co n clus o ry s e n te n c e s in h is b ri e f. See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at38. U ni t ed Stat es v. V

an Sach , 458 F. 3d 694, 699 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( “Shackl i ng a def endant 4 i s an extr eme m eas ur e and w e under s t and the pr ej udi ce thats uch an or dercan ha ve on the ju ry .”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 4 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ T ]h e d e c isio n to u se sh a c k les to re stra in a d e f e n d a n t at tria l sh o u ld ra re lyb e e m p lo y e d a s a se c u rity d e v ice .”) ( in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); Tyars v. F i nner , 709 F. 2d 1274, 1284 ( 9th C i r . 1983) (“ S h a c k lin g . . . m u st b e lim ited to c a se s u rg e n tlyd e m a n d in g th a t ac tio n .”); Kennedy v. C a rdw e ll , 487 F. 2d 101, 110 ( 6t h C i r . 1973) ( “[T] he gene r al rul e [i s ] thata fa i rtr i al d em an d s tha t a de fe n d an t be tri ed fre e o f b o n d s ex ce p t i n ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s. ”). 7 per s on of r eas onabl e prudence w oul d be bound t o s ee [ t hei r ] fl aw s . ” Mi chi gan v. D eFi l l i ppo , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 1 , 3 8 (1 9 7 9 ); se e Illino is v . Kru ll , 4 8 0 U .S . 3 4 0 , 3 5 0 -5 5 (1 9 8 7 ). H e re , B ra n tle yh a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e D O R O A c t s u f f e rs f ro m th e s e in f

ir m itie s . T hus , t he arr es tw as val i d, and w e nee d notdw el l on B r ant l ey ’ s cont ent i on thatthe re stra in in g o rd e r o r th e u n d e rly in g o rd in a n c e w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 3 IV . T h e U se of Sh ack l es B ra n tley ’s n e x t cla im is m u c h m o re tro u b lin g . H e a rg u e s th a t h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to a f a ir trial w a s v io late d b e c a u se h e w a s s h a c k led d u rin g h is t es t i m ony . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o r equi r e a de fenda ntt o w ears hackl es f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . D eck v. Missouri , 5 4 4 U . S . 6 2 2 , 6 2 9 (20 0 5 ). Itis w ell -sett led th at sh ac k li n g a d ef en d an t du ri n g tr ial is an ex tr ao rdin ary m eas ur e; “no per s on s houl d be tr i ed w hi l e s hackl ed . . . exce ptas a l as tr es or t . ” I l l i nois v. A l l en , 397 U . S. 337, 344 ( 1970) . A s the Supr eme C our tm or e r ece nt l yexpl ai ned i n D eck 4 v . Mis s o u r i, s hackl i ng a def endanti s i nher ent l ypr ej udi ci al beca us e i ti m pl i cat es thr ee f u n d a m e n tal le g a l p rin c ip les : 1 ) th e p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e ; 2 ) th e rig h t to c o u n se l,G i ven the i gnom i ni ous hi s t or yand phy s i cal bur den of s hackl es , i ti s no w ondert hat 5 cour t s have l ong expr es s ed conc ern thats hackl es m ayaff ectthe ment al s t at e of the d e f e n d a n t. S e e P e o

p le v . H a r r in g to n , 42 C al . 165, 168- 169 ( 1871) ( s t at i ng thats hackl i ng “i nevi t abl yt ends t o confus e and e m barr as s [the def endant ’ s ] m ent al fac ul t i es , and ther eby m a te ri a lly to a b ri d g e a n d p re ju d ic ia lly a f

f e c t h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f d e f e n s e ,” e s p e c i a l l yr e g a r d i n g h i s a b i l i t yt o b e a “ c o mp e t e n twi t n e s s a n d t e s t i f y [ ] o n h i s o wn b e h a lf ” ); H a u se r v . P e o

p le , 71 N . E . 416, 421 ( I l l . 1904) ( hol di ng thatphy s i cal bonds “ m ig h t te n d to c o n f

u s e o r e m b a rr a s s [ th e d e f e n d a n t’ s ] m e n ta l f

a c u ltie s ” ). M anycour t s have l ai d outfac t or s a tr i al cour tm aycons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hether 6 p h y s ic a l r e s tr a in ts a re a p p ro p ri a te , s o m e o f th e m o b v io u s . S e e , e . g . , Pe op lev . B oose , 362 N . E . 2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 - 0 6 ( I l l . 1 9 7 7 ) . C our t s have a l s o r ecomm ended hol di ng a form al hear i ng, d u rin g w h ich th e p a rties m a yp re se n t re lev a n t ev id e n c e a n d su g g e st a ltern a tiv e se c u rity m e a s u re s . See , e. g. , Kennedy , 487 F. 2d at107 ( “Sever al cour t s , i ncl udi ng thi s one, have r ecogni zed thatt he phy s i cal i ndi ci a of i nnocenc e ar e s o es s ent i al t o a fa i rtr i al thatthe bet t erpr act i ce i s t o hol d a hea r i ng s o t hatfac tual di s put es m aybe r es ol ved and e vi dence o f th e f ac ts surrou n d ing the d ec isi o n are m ad e a p art of the re co rd.”). 8 i ncl udi ng t he r i ghtt o par t i ci pat e i n one’ s defe ns e and the r i ghtt o t es t i fy ; and 3) j udi ci al 5 re s p o n s ib ility f

o r t h e d ig n ity a n d d e c o ru m th a t p re s e rv e s th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . D eck , 544 U .S . at 6 3 0 -3 1 . T h u s, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , “th e F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts pr ohi bi tt he us e of phy s i cal r es t r ai nt s vi s i bl e t o t he j uryabs enta tr i al cour tdet erm i nat i on .

. . t hatt heyar e j us t i fi ed bya s t at e i nt er es ts peci fi c t o a part i cul artr i al . ” Id
. a t 6 2 9 . A ccor di ngl y , t he tr i al j udge “mustm ake a cas e s peci fi c and i ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m ent ” of the def

endanton t r i al , t aki ng i nt o acc ounts peci al s ecur i t yneeds orthe e sc a p e risk o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. B aker , 432 F. 3d at1244 ( ci t i ng D eck , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 6 3 3 ).

6 T h e ju d g e m u s t a ls o c o n s id e r a lte rn a tiv e s to s h a c k lin g . S e e A lle n , 3 9 7 U .S . at 3 4 4 ; s ee al s o Sz uchon v. Lehm an , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 2 9 9 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (ho lding that the tri al co u rt properl yordered t hat defend ant be shackled aft er defend ant vi olent l yassaul t ed a w i t ness i n fr ontof the j ur yand af t ercar eful l ycons i der i ng al t ernat i ves , s uch as “barr i ng [the defe ndant ] fr om t he court r oom ori s s ui ng a cont empt ci t at i on”) . “[T] he def endantneed no tdem on strat e actual pr ej ud i ce t o m ake o ut a due p rocess viol at i on . T he S t at e m ust pr ove ‘ bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatthe [s hackl i ng] err orcompl ai ned of di d notA l t hough t he ar gum enti s notw el l
- devel oped byB r ant l ey , the s ame anal y s i s appl i es 7 t o hi s ar gum entt hatt he M ar s hal s ’ pr oxi m i t yt o hi m dur i ng hi s t es t i m onym ayhave c a u se d th e ju ryto in f

e r th a t h e w a s d a n g e ro u s o r a risk o f f lig h t. Y e t, w e a re sim ilarly t r oubl ed byt he court ’ s fai l ur e t o r ecogni ze the r i s k of pr ej udi ce thatcoul d have r es ul t ed fr om s t at i oni ng M ar s hal s nearB r ant l eyw hi l e he w as on t he w i t nes s s t and. T h e g o v e rn m e n t p re s e n te d te s tim o n yth a t th e g u n w a s m a n u f a c tu re d in M a ryla n d . 8 B ra n tleyw a s in N e w Je rse ya t th e tim e o f h is a rre st. Although theAUSA attempted to justify shacklingBrantley

by ref erencinghis ex tensive 9 rec ord, it is a regrettablefac t that Bra ntley ’s re cord is no moreimposing or thre ateningthan that of many others who pa ss through the nation’s cour trooms. Yet, countless scores of other defendants with simil ar or worse c riminal rec ords are tried every day without shackles and without incident. This is especially true g iven the high volume of ca ses involving dr ug traff icker s that have become the daily fare of all too many federal trial courts. See U ni t ed Stat es v. N

ava rro , 476 F. 3d 188, 191- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “Pos s es s i on of a gun i s oft en a pr act i cal pr er equi s i t e fort he s al e of c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s orcomm i s s i on of othervi ol ent a c ts .” ). T her efor e, i f s hackl i ng i s j us t i fi ed bas ed onl yupon B r ant l ey ’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d, veryfew defe ndant s w oul d be abl e t o s t and tr i al i n, m uch l es s ent er , the nat i on’ s cour t r oom s fr ee of s h a c k le s a n d re s tr a in ts . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 531 F. 3d 340, 346 ( 6th C i r . 2008)

9 contr i but e t o t he ver di ctobt ai ned. ’ ” D eck , 544 U . S. at635 ( quot i ng C hapm an v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 1 8 , 2 4 (19 6 7 )). N ev erthe less, ev en tho u g h n o thing o n this reco rd e stab li sh es th at th e d istri ct co u rt u n d e rto o k th e in q u iryit sh o u ld h a v e b e f o re a llo w in g B ra n tleyto b e sh a c k led d u rin g h is t r i al , w e ca n concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatB r ant l ey ’ s s hackl es di d not contr i but e t o t he ver di ctorunderm i ne hi s t es t i m ony . W hen he t es t i fi ed, B r ant l ey admi t t ed tw o of the thr ee e l ement s of the cr i m e he w as char ged w i t h, and he di d not cont es tt he thi r d. B r ant l eyt es t i fi ed thathe w as a fe l on and admi t t ed thathe pos s es s ed 7 t he gun i n ques t i on, and the governm ent ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce w as notdi s put ed. 8 T o b e c lea r, h o w e v e r, w e a re e x tre m e lytro u b led b yth e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to al l ow B r ant l eyt o r emai n s hackl ed i n t he court r oom w i t h abs ol ut el yno i nqui r yi nt o t he n e c e ss ityf

o r th a t d ra stic a c tio n a n d c e rta in lyn o f in d in g th a t w o u ld su p p o rt it. A s not ed 9( hol di ng “nei t her[def endant ’ s ] l ack of

hones t ynorhi s pot ent i al pr i s on s ent ence –w i t hout evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hathe pos ed a thr eatt o cour t r oom s ecur i t y–s uffi ces as s uch an es s ent i al i nt er es t . W er e w e t o acc eptthe governm ent ’ s pos i t i on . . . , the i m pl ement at i on o f p h y sical restr aints w o u ld b ec o m e e ssen ti all yrou ti n e in f ed era l dru g an d firearm p rose cu ti o n s. T h is i s clea rl yb ey o n d w h at th e C o n sti tuti o n p erm it s. ”). Lopezv. Thurm er , 573 F. 3d 484, 2009 W L 2169205, *6 ( 7th C i r . 2009) ( not i ng t hat 10 t he “c ons t i tut i onal i nfi r m i t y ” of a l l ow i ng l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s t o m ake de ci s i ons im p lica tin g d u e p ro c e ss “ is, to p u t itm ild ly , firm lye sta b lish e d ” ); Mi l l er , 531 F. 3d at346 (ho lding that “[ b ]yd ef

erring to the M arsh als’ j u d g m en t [reg ard ing the u se o f a stun b elt ], th e d istric t co u rt a b d ica ted its re sp o n sib ili tya n d th u s a b u se d its d isc re tio n .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Mayes , 1 5 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 6 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t “tria l ju d g e s s h o u ld notbl i ndl ydefe rt o t he r ecomm endat i on of l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s as t o t he appr opr i at enes s of s hackl i ng w i t houti ndepende nt l yr evi ew i ng the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s t houghtt o w arr ants uch a s ecur i t ym eas ur e and c ar eful l ycons i der i ng t he leg a l ra m if

ica tio n s o f

th a t d e c isio n ” ); H

am eed v
. Mann , 57 F. 3d 217, 222 ( 2d C i r . 1995) (h o ld in g th a t “[ i]n d e ter m in in g w h a t re stra in ts a re n e c e ss a ry , the c o u rt c a n n o t p ro p e rly del egat e thatdeci s i on t o guar ds orot herpr i s on offi ci al s butm us tdeci de thatques t i on for it self” ). 10 a b o v e , th e c o u rt s ta te d th a t it w o u ld c o m p le te ly d e f e r t o th e M a rs h a ls in th e c o u rt ro o m . In d o in g s o , th e c o u rt a b d ic a te d its d is c re tio n , a n d th e re b ya b u s e d th a t d is c re tio n . R ay v. R obi ns on , 6 4 0 F .2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ) (“ If a d istric t co u rt f

a ils to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n , tha t is itse lf

a n a b u se o f

d isc re tio n .”). It is th e ju d g e ’s r e sp o n sib ili tyto 10 ens ur e thatdefe ndant s r ece i ve due pr oces s and funda m ent al fai r nes s ; i ti s notthe j ob of th e U .S . M a rs h a ls . T he s hackl i ng her e i s r ender ed eve n m or e tr oubl i ng w hen w e cons i derthatthe M ar s hal s w er e notpr epar ed t o j us t i fya dec i s i on t o keep Bra nt l eyi n s hackl es . W hen as ked fort hei rvi ew , t heyr eques t ed l eave t o di s cus s the i s s ue w i t h t hei rs upervi s or , but t he courtdeni ed thatr eques t . R atherthan i ndul ge the M ar s hal s and t ol er at e a br i ef de l ay t o det erm i ne w hys hackl i ng m i ghtbe nec es s ary , the courtpr es s ed forw ar d r equi r i ng B ra n tleyto su f

f e r th e in h e re n t in d ig n ityo f b e in g sh a c k led d u rin g h is tria l. T h e c o u rt d id t hi s bas ed upon i t s concl us or yfi ndi ng thatther e w as “no unfa i rpr ej udi ce. ” I n t he11

a b se n c e o f

a d o c u m e n ted n e e d f

o r th e re stra in t, de c lar in g “ n o u n f a ir p re ju d ice ” is h a rd ly c o n sis ten t w ith th e c o u rt’s s o lem n o b lig a tio n o f e n su rin g th a t th o se w h o c o m e b e f o re it a re tre a ted w ith a p p ro p ria te d ig n itya n d a f f o rd e d d u e p ro c e ss . A d e c lar a tio n o f “ n o u n f a ir pr ej udi ce” i s no s ubs t i tut e fora meani ngful i nqui r yi nt o t he nee d t o r es t r ai n a def endant dur i ng t r i al , and i tcannotcur e the i nj urythatr es ul t s t o t he dec orum of the court r oom or t h e d i g n i t y o f

t h e i n d i v i d u a l i f

r e s t r a i n t s a r e n o ta c tu a l l y n e c e s s a r y. F u rth erm o re, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s fo cu s o n o b scu ri n g the s h ac k les fro m the ju ry ’s v iew w a s m isg u id e d . V isib le s h a c k les , w ith o u t ju stif ica tio n sp e c if

ic to th e d e f

e n d a n t, c le a rl yv io la te d u e p ro c e s s . D eck , 5 4 4 U .S . at 6 2 9 . A lth o u g h c o u rts c a n tak e m e a su re s to obs cur e s hackl es – and s houl d do s o even i n t he r ar e ci r cumst ance s thatj us t i fys hackl i ng

– o b sc u re d sh a c k les a re n o les s a n in d ig n ityth a n v isib le o n e s. M o re o v e r, re lief m a ystill b e a p p ro p ri a te e v e n d e s p ite e f f o rt s to h id e re s tr a in ts f

ro m th e ju ry. See, e. g. , R hoden v. R ow l and , 172 F. 3d 633, 637 ( 9t h C i r . 1999) ( gr ant i ng habea s pet i t i on bas ed on evi dence t hatt he j ur ys aw defe ndant ’ s s hackl es dur i ng a tr i al i n w hi ch the tr i al j udge i ns t ruct ed defe ndantt o keep hi s l egs undercouns el t abl e and e s cor t ed def endantt o and fr om the c o u rt ro o m o u ts id e th e ju ry’s p re s e n c e in o rd e r t o h id e th e s h a c k le s ). H ere , tho u g h the d istri ct co u rtm ad e m an yef fo rt s to c o n ce al th em , B ran tl ey ’s sh ac k les m ayh av e b ee n v isi b le t o juro rs du ri n g at l ea st pa rto f h is t esti m o n y . T h e re co rd r efl ect s t hatt he w i t nes s box had s pi ndl es thr ough w hi ch j ur or s m ayhave be en abl e t o s ee hi s l egs . I n t he mi ddl e of Bra nt l ey ’ s t es t i m ony , aft err eal i zi ng the pos s i bi l i t ythatthe s hackl es m i ghtbe vi s i bl e t o t he j ur y , the courtdeci ded t o puta cha i ri n fr ontof the w i t nes s s t and. A s not ed above , t he courtal s o pl ace d t w o M ar s hal s nearB r ant l eyi n an e f f o rt to h id e th e s h a c k le s f ro m th e ju ry w h ile th e ye n te re d a n d e x ite d th e ju ry b o x . T h o u g h s u c h c o n to rt io n s m a ys u c c e s s f u lly o b s c u re s h a c k le s f

ro m th e ju ry’s v ie w , s ee U n itedS ta tes v . T

a g lia m o n te , N o. 07- 4275, 2009 W L 2430937, *6- *7 ( 3d C i r . A ug. 10,I n T a g lia m o n te , a def

endantw as tr i ed i n s hackl es befor e the s ame t r i al j udge af t er 11 th e ju d g e to o k p re c a u tio n s to e n s u re th a t th e s h a c k le s c o u ld n o t b e s e e n b yth e ju ry. W e w oul d notexpec ta j udge t o al l ow defe ndant s t o be r out i nel ys hackl ed. T agl i amont e, l i ke B ra n tley , w a s n o t ab le to d e m o n stra te p re ju d ice . T a g liam o n te c o u ld n o t d o so b e c a u se it w as cl eart hatt he j ur ydi d nots ee the s hackl es . A s w e have expl ai ned, B r ant l eycannot do s o beca us e hi s t es t i m onyvi r tual l yconce ded the el ement s of the cr i m e he w as char ged w i t h. M or eover , cour t s m us tcons i derthe i m pl i cat i ons of s hackl es on t he other 12 fundament al l egal pr i nci pl es l ai d outi n D eck , inclu d ing the im p ac t on the d ef en d an t’ s a b ility to p a rt ic ip a te in h is d e f e n s e a n d th e d ig n ity o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. See D eck , 54 4 U. S. at630- 31
. 12 2009) , cour t s unnece s s ar i l yr i s k t he def endant ’ s fundament al r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al by 11 r el y i ng on t hem. I ti s al s o hi ghl yr i s kyt o as s um e thatthe s ame j ur or s w hom w e expe ct 12 t o be al er tand att ent i ve dur i ng t r i al w i l l notnot i ce the s udden and une xpl ai ned appea r ance of a c hai ri n fr ontof the j urybox orM ar s hal s s t andi ng nearthe def endantas he tes t i fi es. A lth o u g h B ra n tleyis n o t en tit led to re lief , n o c o u rt sh o u ld tak e im p o sin g re stra in ts l i ght l yorcava l i er l y . U nj us t i fi ed s hackl i ng i s a r emnantof an e ar l i erer a w hen the acc us ed w as br oughtfr om pr i s on t o the court r oom i n chai ns , unkempt and w ear i ng ( at b e s t) p ri s o n a ttir e , f

o llo w in g w h ic h h e w a s e x p o s e d to a ju ry in th e w o rs t p o s s ib le lig h t. T h e p rac ti ce ev o k es th e d eh u m an izi n g sp ec ter of slav ery , an d is far f

rom the law ’s p ro m is e o f

re s p e c t o w e d to e a c h in d iv id u a l, in c lu d in g th e a c c u s e d . S e e A lle n , 397 U . S. at 3 5 0 -5 1 (B re n n a n , J., c o n c u rrin g ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t sh a c k lin g a n d g a g g in g o f f e n d “ n o t o n ly j udi ci al di gni t yand dec orum , butal s o t hatr es pectforthe i ndi vi dual w hi ch i s the li fe b loo d o f th e law ”). Iti s an extr em e m easure, that the S up rem e C ou rtcon si ders “a l ast re so rt.” A n yc o u rt c o n sid e rin g su c h a n e x tre m e m e a su re m u st f irst e sta b lish th a t itis a c tu a l l y nece s s ar

y, nots i m pl ya mat t erof pr act i ce orconveni ence . A nd i n m aki ng s uch a det erm i nat i on, a di s t r i ctj udge musts crupul ous l y“make a ca s e s peci fi c and i ndi vi dual i zed as s es s m ent ” thats uppor t s hi s deci s i on t o s hackl e a de fenda ntand pr ovi des a r evi ew i ng13

cour tw i t h an ade quat e r ecor d. T her e i s cert ai nl ynothi ng conveni entaboutr equi r i ng a n y o n e t o s u f

f e rt h e i n d i g n i t yo f

s h a c k l i n g u n l e s s h i s o rh e ro w n c o n d u c tj u s t i f i e s i t . We w i l l t her efor e nothes i t at e t o or dera new tr i al forthi s ki nd of abus e of di s cr et i on i n an a p p ro p ri a te c a s e . V . T he D i s t ri ct C ourt P roperl y D eni ed a D ow nw ard A dj ust m ent f or A cce pt ance of R esp o n sibil it y Fi nal l y , B r ant l eycl ai m s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n r efus i ng t o gr anta tw o- l evel gui del i ne r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . “W e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs under l y i ng t he deni al of a Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yforcl earerr or. . . . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 9 (3d C ir . 2007) . T hi s ar gum enti s puzzl i ng beca us e, as the governm entnot es , B r ant l eydi d not a c c e p t cr i m i nalr es pons i bi l i t y . R ather , he vi gor ous l yar gued thathe di d nothave the m ens r ea r equi r ed t o comm i tt he off ens e he w as char ged w i t h, and adhe r es t o t hat p o sitio n e v e n n o w . B ra n tleyd o e s n o t sim p lyc h a llen g e th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f h is a rre st; in ste a d , h e h a s c o n sis ten tlym a in tain e d th a t h e w a s o n h is w a yto th e p o lice sta tio n to s ur r endert he gun w hen he w as appr ehende d even though, as the di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned and as w e have expl ai ned, hi s ow n t es t i m onyfat al l yunderm i nes thatcl ai m . I n deny i ng t he ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on, the di s t r i ctcour tfound thatB r ant l eyhad not

“ tru th f u llya d m itt e d to h is c o n d u c t,” a n d th e “ f a c ts [ a d ]d u c e d a t trial d o n o t su p p o rt” h is cl ai m t hathe w as at t empt i ng t o r etur n t he fi r earm . W e agr ee . V I. C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .