Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

September 27, 2013

145702 & (58)(59)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145702 COA: 301762 Saginaw CC: 03

- 022744

- FC CHARLES HENRY ARTHUR, Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

By order of February 6, 2013, while retaining jurisdiction, we remanded this case to the Saginaw Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing regarding the decision to k eep the defendant in shackles during the trial. On order of the Court, the trial court having

submit ted a transcript of the hearing, along with its findings of fact and conclusions of law, t he application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered . The motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is

GRANTED. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATE the defendant’s

convi ctions and sentences.

The trial court did not unconstitutionally “nullify” the defendant’s right to self

representation by declining to remove the defendant’s leg shackles. That the defendant elected to relinquish his right of self

- representation rath er than exercise that right while seated behind the defense table does not amount to a denial of the defendant’s right of

self

- representation. See, e.g., Lefevre v Cain , 586 F3d 349 (CA 5

, 2009) (shackling does not violate a defendant’s right to self

- repr esentation), cert den 559 US 1016 (2010).

Moreover, the trial court did not violate the defendant’s due process rights by ordering the defendant to wear leg shackles in the first place because the court was justified in imposing those limited restraints to avoid the risk of flight and to ensure the safety of those present in light of the defendant’s reported escape attempt and the fact that the defendant required extra police security when he was transported to court.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2013

h0924 2

Clerk While a defendant’s right to self

- representation encompasses certain specific core rights, including the right to be heard, to control the organization and content of his own defense, to make motions, to ar gue points of law, to participate in voir dire, to question witnesses, and to address the court and the jury at times, the right to self

- representation is

not unfettered. McKaskle v Wiggins , 465 US 168, 174, 176

- 178 (1984). The defendant

, who undeniably possesses physical prowess, posed a physical danger because of his history of violent acts : he was a convicted double murderer before the instant case began

, serving life without parole for shooting two victims in the head during a carjacking

. The judge had presided over both the previous trial in this case and the other murder trial

, and understandably formed an impression that the defendant was not only violent, but cunning, improvisational, and bent on the execution and concealment of his criminal acts

. The court addressed these concerns by plac ing the defendant in the most reasonable

restrictive restraints available

.

T he court’s decision does not violate Deck v Missouri , 544 US 622 (2005) , where the defendant was shackled with not only leg irons, but also handcuffs and a belly chain, all of which were visible to the jury. T he core rule of Deck is that “the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial.” Deck , 544 US at 629 ( e mphasis added). That is not the case here as the court sought to shield the defenda nt’s leg restraints from the jury’s

view. Further, the record on remand makes clear that n o juror actually saw the defendant

in shackles.