Opinion ID: 788340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Shackling most of the defendants

Text: 149 A decision to shackle defendants is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 50 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Ninth Circuit law places restrictions on that discretion, however: (1) the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances that some measure was needed to maintain the security of the courtroom; and (2)the court must pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints. Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). 150 Even in light of the limitations placed on district courts' discretion, Appellants' assertion of prejudice based on the shackling of nine of the eleven co-defendants is meritless. See Morgan, 24 F.3d at 51 (The judge has wide discretion to decide whether a defendant who has a propensity for violence poses a security risk and warrants increased security measures.); id. at 52 (concluding that the district court protected Morgan's presumption of innocence by removing handcuffs, excusing the jury when he walked to the stand in leg-irons, and took adequate precautions to minimize the effects of the shackles on the jury). As Appellants concede in their opening brief, the district court ordered that the incarcerated defendants would not be handcuffed, that the shackles be padded to avoid noise, that no one would stand when the jury entered the courtroom, to hide the fact that the defendants were restrained, 2002 WL 32302660 at , and that ankle chains were never to be shown to the jury. Id. n. 75. The cases upon which they rely are either easily distinguished or do not support their arguments: two involved or discussed circumstances in which the shackles or handcuffs were apparent to the jury during the trial, and one supports the district court's exercise of discretion in shackling the defendants here. See Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (discussing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), in which the Court found it possible that the sight of shackles and gags might have a significant effect on the jury's feelings about the defendant, but noting that even binding and gagging may nevertheless be warranted in the case of a particularly obstreperous and disruptive defendant) (emphasis added); see also Morgan, 24 F.3d at 51-52 (upholding shackling where district court took precautions to ensure that jury did not know defendant wore leg-irons).